Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: think bigger (Score 1) 21

by Bill Dog (#49108041) Attached to: Might explain some of the behavior here

First off, I think you've got reversed those accusor(s) who are trying to set you straight with those who would only be trying to further confound and knock you down (since you're not one of them, on the solid Left). For me it's the latter that I've removed from my sight here, because I want to be more right/correct, not less.

But you seem to think the way to wisdom is via the wicked. And it partly is, as one half of one's studies towards that. But they're like the Medusa, where direct interaction, like you pine for, is death; you have to examine them indirectly or askew, to not be affected by them.

Secondly, that quote is absolutely brilliant. I like to think I'd gotten close to it, realizing of course that Political Correctness was essentially about bullying.

But I had mostly been considering the Left's constant variations of "the emperor is fully clothed" as the movement's/religion's way of checking how far they'd currently come at any given point. That is, I had assumed that the chief purpose of the non-stop peppering us with untruths, of wide-ranging obviousnesses, was to gauge how either converted or dumbed-down the society had become so far.

I thought the Left's goal might be to make gullible sheep out of all of us, however long it took. But no, I think that Theodore is right and there'll always be those who'll never give in intellectually, and the best the Left can hope for with us is to make us feel like we've sold our souls behaviorally.

And to feel like the scum that they are for doing so, which is then also giving in, feelings-wise.

Thirdly, this truth is a helluva lot bigger than just stupid Slashdot. This is going on full-bore of course in America, and the world in general.

But don't lose sight of the bigger picture -- neither communism nor a Caliphate is the be-all-end-all -- it's just Satan trying to unravel God's order in the world. Satanism, effectively, comprises facets of economic, political, and religious beliefs, whichever ones in those categories that leads to the most misery. But the individual isms, and the people that push them, are really just part of one strategy.

America was a formerly powerful, formerly pretty headstrong nation. BHO doesn't love Muslims. He's not a Muslim, despite what stupid Right-wingers say. He's an atheist (despite what your moderate-to-severe HappyThoughtisis says). And atheists aren't really anti-religion, despite what stupid Slashdotters say. Ever hear of an atheist group putting up billboards saying there is no Allah and Muhammad was not actually a prophet?

It's that those who are against God, of the Jewish and Christian religions, feel they're aligned on a fundamental level. Against Israel, and against a nation under God being supreme in the world. America has to be knocked down several pegs, and be fundamentally transformed away from our Judeo-Christian heritage and values and beliefs. When everyone is even and subdued, then the Antichrist can come and rule.

p.s. I'll be waiting for your singular "Lord bless your heart" response.

Comment: Hey now (Score 1) 1

by Bill Dog (#49103435) Attached to: Revolution 60: A game review I can get behind.

less personality than the cockroach from Wall-E

I liked that little character!

But on the characters shown in that game, I don't care that they're all white, because skin color doesn't matter a whit to me. (Neither do I care that they're all women; why would someone be bothered that other races aren't represented, when a whole gender is missing as well.)

But body image to women (and men) does matter a little bit to me, so it wouldn't have killed them to design more than one body type, if somehow so-called women's issues really is their side cause. Granted this would've taken more time, and more resources on the device. Even the cast of Scooby Do for example contained stereotypes (the tall, thin, non-bespectacled girl of course could not be the smart one!) but exhibited more creativity than this.

p.s. Way in which Slashdot sucks total ass #457: It's 2015; how about displaying Unicode characters or whatever, instead of polluting text with small strings of garbage.

User Journal

Journal: fun with CSS 3 I guess 2

Journal by Bill Dog

So go to www.google.com (I just type in the middle part and use the Ctrl-Enter thingie, a lot), presumably in a modern browser, and type in "askew" without hitting Enter.

It probably only works in the mode where upon typing the first character into their home page it automatically jumps to the search box being in the upper left and intermediate results being displayed as you type, so might require JavaScript being enabled.

Comment: Re:nice trick (Score 1) 5

by Bill Dog (#49053691) Attached to: Fustakrakich, Call Your Office

Jay Cost makes a number of unfair implications:

A) That pork-barreling is anti-Conservative, and the GOP is supposed to be Conservative, but when the GOP last had complete control, it pork-barrelled more than any prior Congress.
But:
1) The GOP is not a Conservative party, it's a neocon party, and big spending is not exactly incompatible with neocon principles, and
2) Bringing home the bacon to keep getting re-elected is a fact of our system, and will always be a balancing act between limiting spending and staying in office, and
3) Most of that bacon was probably for businesses to expand or military contracts, for jobs, all of which is totally compatible with GOP values, and
4) Probably every Congress generally pork-barrels more than the prior one, so it's probably not a trend suddenly started by the GOP, and
5) If a party has been out of power for while there's probably a mindset of having to catch up one's constituencies, having been starved for however long under the opposition party.

B) That one side of the GOP considers low wages and high unemployment a virtue.
Sure there's the desire to pay less for labor and being in a buyer's market, but it's tempered by those things leading to:
1) Less customers who can afford the products or services one is in the business of, and
2) More unhappy and less productive workers and quality, and
3) Higher taxes to pay for expanded use of government subsidies and safety nets.

Ace is just plain either a Leftie or lost most of his contact with reality:

C) The only people who use the term "corporatist", either as a pejorative, or at all, are Lefties. Like "infidel", it's a dead giveaway.

D) American life both politically and economically is not dominated by a corporate class. This is of course a long-peddled Leftie phantasm, any reader of Slashdot for example already knows. We're dominated by a ruling class, who favor special interests. The ruling class is across both parties, and the special interests are environmental and others in addition to corporate ones.

E) It is not "extremely liberal" to want to import a bunch of cheap labor. It's very pro-business, and totally compatible with the neocon outlook. Just because the Democrat party wants to import a bunch of low-skill immigrants, for an entirely different reason (i.e. votes), does not make neocons "liberal". Any more than it makes Democrats "neocon-like". It's just a policy they both share, for different reasons.

F) Talking about "1%-ers", and with disdain, is something only Lefties do. I for example, personnaly don't want to start a business of my own, so I rely on the wealthy for employment opportunities. I appreciate them for affording me the ability to make a living without having the burden of having everything on my shoulders. I like being able to come home and forget about the business I'm involved with.

G) Taxing the rich to death is something only Lefties want.

I) The Conservative agenda has never been a slave to corporate interests. Any more than Conservatives are "slaves" to the gun lobby. You can't be a slave to something you already strongly agree with.

H) Insisting that corporations serve one's political agenda is only put forth by Lefties. They call it "social responsibility". I tell them to fuck off. Private enterprise is a private enterprise and the Conservative position is that they ought to do whatever their owners want, not what some commie puke wants.

Comment: nice trick (Score 1) 5

by Bill Dog (#49044887) Attached to: Fustakrakich, Call Your Office

It started off sounding like a Conservative making some unfair statements about the Republican Party, only to be revealed to be a Leftie making obviously untrue statements about it, and otherwise spouting predictable Leftie angles. Sad, because there are many valid criticisms of the GOP (see: the (once hopeful) Tea Party movement). But one would have to get serious first, to talk about them. (Which implies honesty, neither of which one will get out of a Leftie*.)

*Except possibly when you're alone with one, who's also family. Otherwise, it's poker-faced propaganda, all the time. (Because winning power is of the utmost importance. (Because that's the only real way that "fairness" can be ensured. By being imposed. Q.E.D. It's just Leftism 101. Here endeth the lesson. You're welcome.))

Comment: Re:parablica (Score 1) 39

by Bill Dog (#49013271) Attached to: You can all blame me

The intersecting planes metaphor is as dirt simple and accurate as I can make it.

That's what I was afraid of; you think that's excelling at being communicative. Think of it this way: How would you explain it to your children?

Since it's a guessing game you require being played, I'll play for now. It seems like if I decide to go get a chicken sammich at CJ's for lunch today, either I decided it, or God made me decide it. So by your geometric analogy that you consider the epitome of clarity do you mean:
1) We both had a hand in deciding, as in I was leaning toward it, and God nudged me to finally do it?
2) It was all me deciding, but God already knew about it, and okayed it/didn't act to stop me?
3) We both had a hand in deciding, but it was 100% me deciding and, in some drug-induced way of looking at it, also simultaneously 100% God forcing me to decide that way?
4) Other?

Also, explain how a line is a good representation of the pseudo- Free Will you believe in. And why is that line "time"?

Comment: Re:parablica (Score 1) 39

by Bill Dog (#49009981) Attached to: You can all blame me

The first is not an elaboration, and the second, based on what you've indicated in the past (I do pay atttention), is from either intellectual dishonesty or intellectual dishevelment. I'll assume the latter. Maybe we should just stick to toilet humor. Here's my lame attempts for today:

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Comment: Re:parablica (Score 1) 39

by Bill Dog (#49009695) Attached to: You can all blame me

That is, I think you can reasonably/mystically argue that any moment in your life you're both 100% doing your thing, and 100% carrying out your Destiny.

That's nonsensical on the surface, so you would have to explain how it makes sense to you.

But you've only answered part of the question at hand. Even if you do believe that God has forced us back to Him a few times in the past, and that's why America could, theoretically, turn around, why do you assume He would do it again? I mean, He might (assuming for the sake of argument that He would), or He might not. As far as I know He never promised to keep America from straying too far from Him.

Dreams are free, but you get soaked on the connect time.

Working...