Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 37

by damn_registrars (#48192239) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

Sorry, there is only one way to kill the power, but you won't accept it.

So tell us, oh enlightened one. What is the One True Path To Greatness?

Voting for Mickey Mouse won't do it; we know those votes go to /dev/null.

Getting a third party president in won't do it (even if it wasn't impossible) as it would just drive the democrats and republicans to work together to circumvent him.

Not voting won't do it either, as there is no minimum number of votes required to elect anyone in this country.

Comment: Re:Republican in a different sense than now (Score 1) 5

by damn_registrars (#48191979) Attached to: How the worm turns

His family with their values wouldn't be republicans now, regardless of the color of their skin.

You're waaaaay too confident there, Hot Rod.

As per your usual M.O. you skipped my argument entirely.

I'll restate it for you this one time.

How would the King family come to terms with their desire to help working people - particularly in their support of working people being able to organize for negotiations and rights - with the fact that the republican party is very plainly opposed to such things?

I'll even concede that the democratic party has done a craptacular job of protecting workers' rights, as shown by the stagnation of wages, the drop in union membership, the loss of job security, the decrease in job benefits, etc. This of course does far more to support my earlier arguments of our country being on a constant march towards the right than anything.

The fact of the matter is though that the King family was very concerned about the plight of the working class, and the republican party is not at all. If you want to make a claim that they would have been independent voters (perhaps of a Bernie Sanders alignment) you can go for that but they most certainly would not be voting republican.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 37

by damn_registrars (#48191937) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

I get a straight percentage off of the Kindle.

Wow, you read the page number at the bottom of the reader. Impressed? No, I am not.

And sure, I'm skimming it.

It's debatable whether your reading style is worth being summarized as skimming. From your replies it seems you read at most 10% of the words. The fact that you go through "skimming" it and come out with the same conclusions on it that you had before you took it upon yourself to start "skimming" it supports the notion that you are not making anything resembling a vague attempt at comprehension. In fact I expect you would have been just as well off finding a Mandarin translation from the original German, and then attempt to read it in a mirror while gargling hydrogen peroxide and juggling flaming chainsaws.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 37

by damn_registrars (#48191895) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate
Wow, impressive job of yet again completely abandoning your argument. You still haven't actually given a single instance of Reagan being more conservative than Obama. Not. One. Single. Instance.

The simple fact is that Reagan would have jumped for joy at the opportunity to sign the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, as it made us all obligate consumers and gave more power to powerful corporations. That was exactly the kind of thing that he happily endorsed throughout his presidency, and the kind of thing that every politician who has lifted his name on high has been trying to be the first to have associated with their own name. Considering every politician who has proposed an "alternative" to the law has basically proposed replacing it with itself, it appears you are one of the only people who doesn't understand this yet.

We've never had a president who was more conservative in actions than President Lawnchair. If you really want people to think that electing such a person would be a good idea then you need to explain why it has never happened before in history and why that is not a sign of it being a bad idea.

Comment: Not my LG... (Score 2) 61

by damn_registrars (#48191545) Attached to: Which Android Devices Sacrifice Battery-Life For Performance?
... my LG Android device doesn't perform well or get good battery life. It's a slug that is constantly running out of internal storage (which makes apps run like crap and prevents them from being updated) and gets about 6-8 hours of battery life on standby most days. I don't do any apps more complicated than google plus on it, and I don't view any videos of any kind on it.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 37

by damn_registrars (#48191539) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate
Wow, 2/3rds magically became 90% under your special Tea Party math. Just because you happily learned an alternate math system doesn't mean you actually understand math, science, economics, or reality.

And frankly, it does not appear that you have read 90% of and comment I have written in the past year or so. If your reading of the Communist Manifesto is 90% of the "reading" you apply to my comments then you probably haven't read more than 30% of the words on the pages.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 37

by damn_registrars (#48191521) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

Obama is not a president for "Progress", as the state has not expanded.

So you're trying to say that the Affordable Care Act doesn't exist?

Give me a break. The minimal government expansion of the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is dwarfed by how much the federal government grew under Saint Ronnie. At the same time many other government employees have been given pink slips under President Lawnchair.

Comment: Re:Bruce, I know why u r disappointed. Let me expl (Score 1) 178

So, I see this as rationalization.

The fact is, you took a leadership position, and later turned your coat for reasons that perhaps made sense to you. But they don't really make sense to anyone else. So, yes, everyone who supported you then is going to feel burned.

You also made yourself a paid voice that was often hostile to Free Software, all the way back to the SCO issue. Anyone could have told you that was bound to be a losing side and you would be forever tarred with their brush.

So nobody is going to believe you had any reason but cash, whatever rationalization you cook up after the fact. So, the bottom line is that you joined a list of people who we're never going to be able to trust or put the slightest amount of credibility in.

And ultimately it was for nothing. I've consistently tried to take the high road and it's led to a pretty good income, I would hazard a guess better than yours, not just being able to feel good about myself.

Comment: Re:That's all we need ... (Score 5, Insightful) 339

by bersl2 (#48188907) Attached to: Debian's Systemd Adoption Inspires Threat of Fork

Systemd does not need to die. All the more power to those who wish to use it.

However, it is undesired by a significantly large portion of users and sysadmins, and it is unsuitable for those who still actually want to run Linux as a Unix-like OS.

For these reasons, in my opinion, it is not (yet) ready to become the init for a number of general-purpose distributions out there. Moreover, it is unacceptable for the udev subsystem to reside in the same source tree as systemd, and it is unacceptable for udev to integrate, except through the use of a stable and init-independent interface, into any particular init implementation or design.

Comment: Re:This could be really good for Debian (Score 4, Insightful) 339

by Bruce Perens (#48188887) Attached to: Debian's Systemd Adoption Inspires Threat of Fork
I am beginning to be wary of systemd, but no. I am talking about anal-retentive policy wonks who believe they only make the distribution for themselves and have (perhaps without intending to) systematically marginalized Debiian and made the project a whore to Ubuntu.

Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau