Comment Re:They can send a ping to the moon.... (Score 1) 131
Oh, well if COMCAST says it, it must be true.
I like how you picked just one network (MSNBC) as an example of a "24-hour propaganda network run for their benefit". Gee, I wonder which way your political leanings flail.
MSNBC was politically left-wing long before Comcast even started talking about buying them, and in fact, before we even had a Democrat president. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP then, and the executive branch. But nice try.
The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop framing the problem as "left vs. right", and start framing it as "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us", then maybe we'll see something happen. Until then, you're part of the problem.
Spoiler alert: the article basically spends most of its time saying "Larry Page is a genius, and like many geniuses, is socially awkward." Wow. How ground-breaking.
That said, I did find it interesting enough to keep reading it.
(Or he would be, if the law were Constitutional in the first place. SCOTUS says it's a "tax"? Well, tax laws have to originate in the House. Obamacare didn't.)
"The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962) was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act
I get the outrage over the FCC making this happen today, but where's the outrage over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals basically forcing them to make this rule?
Honest question from me (because maybe I'm missing something): Didn't the FCC attempt to block large service providers from blocking or "unreasonably discriminating" against online content? And then in January, the court smacked them down and said "you don't have the power to do that." Seems like the FCC are not the worst bad guys here.
FYI, "the other things", and the cause of all of the cheering, was not from this awesome moon thing, but from the line just before... "Why does Rice play Texas?"
AC makes completely made-up claim, film at 11.
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
The Rice-Texas throwaway line was merely one humorous insertion while Kennedy was making a larger point. The continuation of this urban legend about people cheering for the football team should annoy you.
You're making a gross exaggeration. The focus of that part of the speech was about going to the moon. The line "Why does Rice play Texas" was just one example out of several offered up as "hard things":
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
You think he's not funny. But don't assume that you know what the rest of us are laughing at.
Comedy is more subjective than food. You can certainly disagree with what millions of people find funny about Letterman, and you can voice your opinion of those people for enjoying his humor, but when you make a statement about WHY those people are laughing, you reveal more about your own ignorance.
Even if it's as you portray, that's preferable to say, CNN, which has points of view it *never* airs because it's against their political agenda.
Proof please.
No, I understand entirely that they're not killing them. I say that's a good thing. I'm also not worried about 3% of them dying as that certainly seems reasonable when compared against the benefits of harvesting their blood. I was merely commenting on the fact that you seemed to be representing their status as not endangered at all - when that's the only sentence you write, you come off as someone that's annoyed by the fact that we're not just killing them, instead of the catch-and-release that actually is going on.
If I was incorrect about your point of view, I apologize, but maybe next provide a little more context - that way you won't have to jump down someone's throat and start typing in all caps like a 12-year-old.
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
