Apart from his totally ridiculous ideology, he's a king sized asshole with no desire to actually accomplish anything when he can bloviate about things instead.
So sure, he'd fit right in.
PS, If you like RMS, your judgement is suspect enough that you should be examined by a mental health professional.
"Yes but as a true independent I can honestly say that being biased toward the D camp means being on the side of logic and reason far more often than the R camp."
No, actually that's just what people like you say to make yourselves feel better about your own bias.
It doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't make you any better than your polar opposite kool-aid drinkers.
In fact, if you asked a Fox news watcher they'd probably spew something similar to what you said.
And in light of the fact that your idiot ass has posted exactly ZERO evidence to support your point, I'll ask you, HEY IDIOT, CARE TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT?
Posting links that don't support you in any way and then saying "yes huh" is not an argument.
It is however, all the "argument" you've made.
PS you're wrong on the ninth, and clearly too stupid to read it to realize why.
If by NO REASON, you mean LOTS OF REASONS, then you're on to something.
How many people go to those places and don't read English? Or don't read at all? Or don't have eyesight good enough to read the posters you want?
Also, as a resident of Orange county myself, I call BS on several examples.
The courthouse televisions are used for more than announcements. They are frequently used to prepare people in advance of seeing the judge (traffic court) so they don't ALL ask the same stupid god damned question, or need the same god damned paperwork, etc. There is no way, having recently been forced to sit through the presentation at traffic court, that a poster could give the necessary information.
Schools and universities have programming that runs on the TV's you seem to think can be replaced by a poster. Those examples fail.
In fact, there isn't a single example on your list that could be replaced by a poster. I suspect you've never actually paid attention to what the TV's are used for, and by suspect, I mean, I am certain based on your grousing.
+5 my pale white ass, this guy bitched and was just plain wrong, and gets +5.
"I suggest you gather a few more sources besides fox news and NRA mailers if you want people to take you seriously"
I suggest you start debating reasonably, and avoid obvious ad hominems if you want to avoid looking disingenuous and have any credibility.
If you can refute the argument, do so. Attacking the source like you did is pointless, as fox news isn't the source, it's just the outlet that is provding the information.
The source is Obama himself, so if you can demonstrate that the assertions are untrue, do so.
I suspect you cannot, however, which is why you immediately took the very cheap "it's fox news" out.
"Besides that, most dictionaries define global warming as something related only to the Earth and also as needing measurements taken over decades"
I'm calling BS right there. The bolded part, after an impromptu search of the several hard copies in our office and a few online dictionaries, makes no reference of the time frame whatsoever. The part about it relating to "earth" is correct, though.
If you want to keep production up, you need to keep clearing rainforest (until you run out), and essentially leave behind an unproductive desert.
My point was that it does not have to be unsustainable. GGP was wrong about that. Thanks for trying to clarify, but you're arguing a point I never made.
Admittedly, it's a bad idea to dismiss the message because of the messenger.
However, in this case Greenpeace has no one to blame but themselves. Had they been more focused on their own credibility and not on publicity at the sake of factual accuracy, then they wouldn't have this problem.
"Stuff tastes better to you because that is the only thing you ate since you were 4!"
No, it's not. On top of the fact that my mother wouldn't let me eat it much, I was an athlete so I ate well. You're way off here.
"You will not know what healthy food tastes because you have never tried it (your taste buds and your brain have never seen it, so you'll never crave it and it take a very long time to acquire a taste).
For example if you have never had eggplant salad, how do you expect one day to just wake-up one day and say "I think I want some eggplant salad today!". No, if you have only eaten hot dogs, pizza and McDonalds hamburgers that is the only thing you'll want. There might be really good healthy food there but you just won't know about it. "
And what if I've had all that, eat healthy all the time and still like the way some unhealthy food tastes? I have, and nothing beats McD's fries with just the right amount of salt. So now what?
Lastly, please stop trying to hide your cultural elitism behind the facade of behavioral psychology.
Because of PE in high school, I was introduced to a sport I never would have had a chance to play otherwise. Because of PE in high school, I fell in love with that sport and got a scholarship to college. Because of PE in high school I got a college education and made life long friends of people from diverse backgrounds, created great memories, and traveled the world, all things I would probably have missed out on otherwise.
My life is so much better because of what at the time seemed like a silly game I screwed around with in 9th grade that I'm ashamed to remember how shortsighted I was.
Slashdot Mirror
"People are still paying attention to Steve Ballmer???"
More than are paying attention to your pathetic flame attempt.
God, what an obvious karma whore...
Hey look, more justification for your bias.
Perhaps you missed the part where I mooted your idiotic argument, yet you made it anyway.
I'm going to let you in on a secret. You bias is JUST AS OBVIOUS AND JUST AS ILLOGICAL as an R's to an outside observer.
Sadly for you, you look even less intelligent and less insightful because of your pathetic attempts to repeatedly argue otherwise.
You're wrong.
Stop fighting it, you won't be less wrong no matter what you do.
RMS is a fucking wacko.
Apart from his totally ridiculous ideology, he's a king sized asshole with no desire to actually accomplish anything when he can bloviate about things instead.
So sure, he'd fit right in.
PS, If you like RMS, your judgement is suspect enough that you should be examined by a mental health professional.
"How about we just ignore the opinions of morons instead?
I'll start with myself.
Fixed it for you"
I agree Harmony, if we are ignoring the opinions of morons, you should start with yourself.
Especially since you were so stupid you thought you could log out and troll AC like you did there.
"Yes but as a true independent I can honestly say that being biased toward the D camp means being on the side of logic and reason far more often than the R camp."
No, actually that's just what people like you say to make yourselves feel better about your own bias.
It doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't make you any better than your polar opposite kool-aid drinkers.
In fact, if you asked a Fox news watcher they'd probably spew something similar to what you said.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
Read that, so you can realize that your claim "all the black people were backing Hillary Clinton anyway" is completely refuted by reality.
What's the point of making shit up that can be so easily disproven?
You're an idiot.
And in light of the fact that your idiot ass has posted exactly ZERO evidence to support your point, I'll ask you, HEY IDIOT, CARE TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT?
Posting links that don't support you in any way and then saying "yes huh" is not an argument.
It is however, all the "argument" you've made.
PS you're wrong on the ninth, and clearly too stupid to read it to realize why.
How about we just ignore the opinions of morons instead?
I'll start with you.
He asked several very important questions and your response was "stop watching Fox news and shut up" with nothing resembling an answer.
You mods who modded that flamebait up need to grow up, there was nothin interesting or insightful about it.
So your reply is a post about unenumerated rights which has fuck all to do with his queston?
The Ninth is irrelevant to his question.
"There is NO REASON for this."
If by NO REASON, you mean LOTS OF REASONS, then you're on to something.
How many people go to those places and don't read English?
Or don't read at all?
Or don't have eyesight good enough to read the posters you want?
Also, as a resident of Orange county myself, I call BS on several examples.
The courthouse televisions are used for more than announcements. They are frequently used to prepare people in advance of seeing the judge (traffic court) so they don't ALL ask the same stupid god damned question, or need the same god damned paperwork, etc. There is no way, having recently been forced to sit through the presentation at traffic court, that a poster could give the necessary information.
Schools and universities have programming that runs on the TV's you seem to think can be replaced by a poster. Those examples fail.
In fact, there isn't a single example on your list that could be replaced by a poster. I suspect you've never actually paid attention to what the TV's are used for, and by suspect, I mean, I am certain based on your grousing.
+5 my pale white ass, this guy bitched and was just plain wrong, and gets +5.
"I suggest you gather a few more sources besides fox news and NRA mailers if you want people to take you seriously"
I suggest you start debating reasonably, and avoid obvious ad hominems if you want to avoid looking disingenuous and have any credibility.
If you can refute the argument, do so. Attacking the source like you did is pointless, as fox news isn't the source, it's just the outlet that is provding the information.
The source is Obama himself, so if you can demonstrate that the assertions are untrue, do so.
I suspect you cannot, however, which is why you immediately took the very cheap "it's fox news" out.
She's not. Get over it.
Um, no. Just no.
Mary Masterman
"Besides that, most dictionaries define global warming as something related only to the Earth and also as needing measurements taken over decades"
I'm calling BS right there. The bolded part, after an impromptu search of the several hard copies in our office and a few online dictionaries, makes no reference of the time frame whatsoever. The part about it relating to "earth" is correct, though.
I don't think you understood what he meant...
The GP did not make any claim that sustainable agriculture does not exist.
You're correct, but I never claimed he did. What he did say was
If you want to keep production up, you need to keep clearing rainforest (until you run out), and essentially leave behind an unproductive desert.
This is not accurate. As to your question of Brazil, it is answered in the links or with a little research.
This line is what I was referring to
If you want to keep production up, you need to keep clearing rainforest (until you run out), and essentially leave behind an unproductive desert.
My point was that it does not have to be unsustainable. GGP was wrong about that. Thanks for trying to clarify, but you're arguing a point I never made.
You're absolutely right of course, but you'll notice I wasn't questioning the study, only commenting on Greenpeace's lack of credibility.
"There's your shadow of a doubt."
Not shadow of a doubt, reasonable doubt. That is not what I would consider "reasonable" were I a juror.
Admittedly, it's a bad idea to dismiss the message because of the messenger.
However, in this case Greenpeace has no one to blame but themselves. Had they been more focused on their own credibility and not on publicity at the sake of factual accuracy, then they wouldn't have this problem.
Sorry, but you've bought into the lie.
Agriculture is technology, and as such, is capable of being used in both constructive and destructive ways.
Lacandon
Agroforestry
Sustainable Agriculture
The only reason rain forest agriculture is currently unsustainable is because of the ease of slash and burn techniques and, frankly, laziness.
"Stuff tastes better to you because that is the only thing you ate since you were 4!"
No, it's not. On top of the fact that my mother wouldn't let me eat it much, I was an athlete so I ate well. You're way off here.
"You will not know what healthy food tastes because you have never tried it (your taste buds and your brain have never seen it, so you'll never crave it and it take a very long time to acquire a taste).
For example if you have never had eggplant salad, how do you expect one day to just wake-up one day and say "I think I want some eggplant salad today!". No, if you have only eaten hot dogs, pizza and McDonalds hamburgers that is the only thing you'll want. There might be really good healthy food there but you just won't know about it. "
And what if I've had all that, eat healthy all the time and still like the way some unhealthy food tastes? I have, and nothing beats McD's fries with just the right amount of salt. So now what?
Lastly, please stop trying to hide your cultural elitism behind the facade of behavioral psychology.
Because of PE in high school, I was introduced to a sport I never would have had a chance to play otherwise. Because of PE in high school, I fell in love with that sport and got a scholarship to college. Because of PE in high school I got a college education and made life long friends of people from diverse backgrounds, created great memories, and traveled the world, all things I would probably have missed out on otherwise.
My life is so much better because of what at the time seemed like a silly game I screwed around with in 9th grade that I'm ashamed to remember how shortsighted I was.
So, it can't just taste better to me? It has to be an "addiction" or some "emotional response"? Sorry, that's just nonsense.