Uh... yeah, no.

The Federal Entitlements have seen record increases in people on them, but that's not because they were expanded, or the rules were loosened at all. There are more people on welfare, because the economy sucks.

While Obamacare is not as progressive as a socialist would implement, that does not mean it is not progressive.

In a land where children work long hours in factories for crappy pay, a law that would limit them to only 40 hours a week is still a progressive policy, even though it is not as progressive as what we have already implemented ourselves...

I'm sure the OSI is as well. And I'm sure that the OSI likes the logo, and filed regretfully...

Why would they file if they don't want to file?

Trademarks are use-'em-or-lose-'em. If you see something that is potentially infringing, and don't do anything about it, then when someone else comes along and actually does infringe, and you don't like it, they can point to you giving up your rights to your trademark in the previous case, and POOF! There goes your trademark entirely.

It's a shitty situation, but this is where trademark law has left us. For the OSI to have a trademark, they have to sue the OSHWA over this...

It really depends on what you find to be "bad"... some people hold that he's had a few bad movies, but when I think about the movies, I either think it's because they were too pop, targeted for children, or too haughty...

Hitch - It's a rom-com. I have it in German for a reason... it's a good movie to me.
Shark Tale - for kids, and was kind of pop-ish... still watched it, and enjoyed it ok. Came out too soon after Finding Nemo though...
The Legend of Badger Vance - too haughty... I expect it's a critically awesome movie from the way it looks, but just don't have much care to watch it.
Independence Day - Pretty much the closest thing to a "bad" movie he's been in... and I _STILL_ think the movie is a well done B-movie.

So, yeah, it depends on where you draw your line...

Also, I've heard that Wild Wild West was kind of "lame", again, mostly because it was too popular.

What problem is that specifically? Regular chest pain/indigestion? If so, you may want to see your doctor about it. Esophageal cancer is the single biggest killer in cancer, because people just assume that it's indigestion and self-medicate with antacids, but they don't really work all that well, because the problem is in the esophagus. Then when they finally get it diagnosed, it's usually in Stage 4 or something ridiculous.

So, yeah, if you're getting regular indigestion, or chest pain, have it looked at, don't just self medicate.

Really. I pinged a friend who uses iGoogle, and he's just like "Meh".

I don't know... by their personalities, one would expect Ballmer to be the crazy man... but then it's always the quiet ones, isn't it?

I suspect that your later guess is the more likely culprit. I like to think that Apple put a big dent in things as well.

You mean, by a box that you define for the Left. You're certainly not using the left's opinions in this matter, as we all construct our own boxes. When a Protestant calls the Mormon faith "non-Christian", it's because the Protestant has established a box that they define as being "Christianity", and refuse to put "Mormonism" in there. Even though, a Mormon could readily agree with all points of the Nicene Creed, which my church home (from when I was Christian) considers as the fundamental list of Christian beliefs.

And that's kind of the point. If I said I were a cat, you could point out that I am clearly not a part of any feline species, and thus not a "cat". However, if I say that I am "Republican" then short of locating my voter registration designated party, you cannot verify it. And if I've been elected as a Republican, then I am a Republican, whether you disagree with me or not.

And thus the inherent No True Scotsman in the acronym "RINO"... implicit (explicit in the acronym) is that there is some defining set of beliefs that a Republican should have, and that since this person stands in contrast to that ideal, there is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.. that the speaker's opinions on who is and is not a Republican are authoritative.

I mean, when "He is a RINO", is the most obvious response to "But Congressman XY is in favor of raising taxes, and he's a Republican", it should be clear that the term is itself a No True Scotsman fallacy.

None of this requires that someone in the right-wing must not believe that the economy is a zero-sum game.

In fact, those who call for a gold-standard economy are specifically aiming to turn the economy into a quite-literally zero-sum game, in order to defeat inflation.

... but there are right-wingers who think that this is a zero-sum game.

The believing that the world is not a zero-sum game is not a necessary precedent for being "right-wing" or "conservative". In fact, a conservative could be argued to be even more in favor of a zero-sum game, because they want to conserve as much of the game as possible. e.g. There are only so many tax dollars, and the various budgets have to make due with what is available. We cannot just arbitrarily raise the amount spent, just because we want to spend more money, but we have to be limited by the zero-sum budget game of a balanced budget.

So, NTS does apply to the statement that I originally objected to. The idea that the world is a zero-sum game is not an exclusively left-wing or liberal position. Your inevitable argument that "then those right-wingers/conservatives have been corrupted" is just a different, but synonymous way of saying "no true right-winger/conservative would believe that the world is a zero-sum game".

And if you don't say what you mean, then don't complain about getting hit because you made an informal logical fallacy.

Hell, Conservapedia's page on RINOs doesn't even assert "corruption". But makes a baldfaced patent assertion of No True Scotsman:

To quote Wikipedia for RINO:

There is no assertion of corruption. There is only the statement that the Republican member is "insufficiently conservative". Implicit in that statement is the argument that they are not true Republicans, because they're not conservative enough.

I don't see how one can look at the phrase, "Republican In Name Only" and not see that it is synonymous with "Not a True Republican".

Alice: "Republicans would never support the Healthcare bill."
Bob: "Actually, I'm a Republican, and I support the Healthcare bill."
Alice: "Well, no TRUE Republican would support the Healthcare bill."

The No True Scotsman is an attempt to deny a group of people from a label, even though the label applies, because they disagree with something that the asserter believes to be a fundamental requirement.

Alice: "True Christians wear crosses."
Bob: "Actually, the Mormons don't wear crosses."
Alice: "Like I said, true Christians wear crosses. So Mormons obviously aren't true Christians."

I was watching TV with my mother, and there was a rapper on stage wearing a cross. She asked if he were a Christian, and I said, "I don't know. He's not a part of the Christian music scene, but that doesn't mean that he's not Christian." She was confused by my answer, because she didn't understand that what makes one a Christian is if they call themselves a Christian. You cannot invalidate my claim that I am a Christian by attacking my actions, or statements, because those don't matter. A Christian is a person who has belief in Jesus.

So, when people talk about RINOs, they're talking about people who are called Republicans, but obviously aren't true Republicans, because they fail to uphold some arbitrary condition that the asserter feels is necessary to call oneself a Republican. Even though, each of those RINOs has won the Republican nomination for their constituency. They are Republicans, and asserting that they're not true Republicans, by asserting that they are Republicans in name only, carries an implicit No True Scotsman argument right from the beginning. If they are Republicans In Name Only, then you're saying that a true republican would never hold their same positions. You are making an "ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion" right from the start, because your unstated assertion is that a Republican would never hold the positions of the RINO. Although, since they are Republicans, you have to assert that they're not true Republicans, because they hold positions that no true Republican would hold.

Then I have no idea how to help you figure out why people were flaming you... >_<