Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: "The Ego" (Score 1) 553 553

She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.

Wait, ... what? That's like saying that Nixon would have had a scandal free administration if they'd just avoided proving the allegations...

Comment: Re:Never a good idea (Score 1) 105 105

Show me someone who's actually saying that, and we'll have a common ground. But I don't know anyone who believes who argues against creating fewer pollutants, managing resources more wisely, or pursuing more efficient and sustainable energy.

See, this is precisely why you have such resistance. For people like you it's not about a logical progression of technology, or a measured response to possible or even likely impacts, You behave as though you have the one single whole and true answer, and that anyone who deviates from your position by even 5 degrees is a flat-earther who obviously eats babies for sport. You come across as a cultist zealot rather than an even marginally reasonable person, and it does far more harm to your cause than good.

Comment: Re:Never a good idea (Score 2) 105 105

What's being argued, right now, is that we don't have a sufficient grasp on the technology, or a suitably unified scientific/sociopolitical agenda.

We dont even have a sufficient grasp of what is happening, what the true root causes are and what percentage of impact each has, or to what degree the global ecosystem is able to offset the impacts. How the hell do you build a "solution" to a problem you cant even fully quantify?

Arent people getting tired of these egocentric asshats that he repeatedly tell us, "Well, yeah, we were wrong about that. And that, and that, ... and that. And that outcome wasnt quite what we predicted. But we're exactly right this time! And you'd be a fool not to completely endorse everything we say and do precisely as we say or the world is going to end!"

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676 676

Ah, I see. So it's not that we aren't entitled to read the bill before we are held accountable to following it. It's that we're just too stupid to understand it, and only elected elites have whit sufficient to appreciate or comprehend its content.

No matter what spin you put on it, the statement pronounces that there are those in power who are allowed to be a part of the process, and the rest of us just need to shut up and be told what's good for us.

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676 676

In full context, in any context, the only way to interpret that statement is that We The People are not entitled to read a law proposed by Congress, and are only required to be in compliance to a law already passed by Congress.

Tell me some other way to interpret it.

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676 676

And a google search on "Bush stupid" really does return fifty-two million, eight hundred thousand results.

That doesn't prove that the Bush's are actually any more stupid that any number of Democrats. It just proves the press gets a stiffy every time they get a whiff of another Republican foible they can beat to death.

Conversely, if you google actual stupid shit said by Democrats (like the one in my sig...) the vast majority of hits you'll see are explanations about how it was taken out of context, how it was just a honest slip, or how it's a trumped up scandal. The Vice President can suggest firing off a few shotgun blasts from your porch to ward off intruders, and that's fine. The President can suggest he's been to all 57 states, and that's just fine. But if a Republican says something dumb, you'd think they just punched a preschooler.

Comment: Re:The future is here (Score 1) 197 197

Yes. Dream of an educated and intellectually honest electorate that embraces the notion of government staying the fuck out of their business. But until we squash the idea that government has to be there to regulate everything, make it "fair", and save us from ourselves, we're pretty well screwed.

Comment: Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun (Score 1) 449 449

Absolutely accurate assessment. It was dumb shit. And as soon as people figured out it was little more than dumb shit by a backward dipshit redneck, they distanced themselves fast because they knew it was WRONG.

Quite unlike the cult of personality aimed at certain political figures who will be defended to the media's dying breath, and in turn eaten up by weak-minded, intellectually dishonest populace, no matter how egregious the failures or betrayals may be.

Not just people who consider themselves Tea Partiers (which I am not included in), but also those who are independents and libertarians feel a need to challenge elected officials to actually uphold their oaths of office. They are currently slamming both Democrats and Republicans alike because they are sick and tired of having stupid shit rammed down their throats. You, and many like you seem to want to excuse every power grab, every lie, every failure, and every injustice. And I cant tell if it's because you're terrified of being called a racist or a misogynists (like you're so fond of calling anyone who challenges this administration, or Democrats in general), or if it's because you're too shallow to call out the people you voted for.

And while we're on the topic, and as you eluded to but cant seem to make the leap of critical thinking to comprehend; You allow these idiots in Washington to keep taking more power, and keep telling you that you have to do this, and you cant do that. And you allow it because you think this guy is so awesome and kind , he won a Nobel Peace Prize for Christ's sake! You believe its impossible that he/they/whatever wont abuse the powers they are taking. But what if the next guy, or the guy 4 elections from now is the worst of the worst right-wing bible thumping gun toting complete fucking nutjob?


When you're bitching in a decade because shit has come completely off the fucking rails, don't come talk to me about.

Comment: Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun (Score 1) 449 449

Actually most Tea Party people just want government to leave them the fuck alone. They disdain government's intrusion, they don't trust it, and they would be far from interested in being directly associated with it. Most wouldn't run for office for fear of the rot in DC contaminating themselves. For the most part they just want government to be held to the limits that people like George Washington deliberately and purposefully crafted into the Constitution.

It's people who write law after law saying stupid shit like you're not allowed to buy a 32oz coke in a restaurant, or that you can have salt shakers on the table that want control over everything, and those people are not Tea Partiers. Those people are mocked by Tea Partiers. Those are the people who write laws that mean to prevent you from ever becoming guilty of making a mistake, rather than assuming your innocent, like our system of laws is intended.

Comment: Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun (Score 1) 449 449

And to elaborate:
I don't wish to grant any new power to ANY authority. I don't want the President, the House, the Senate, the EPA, the Dept, or Ed, the Dept of Defense, the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Homeland Security... NONE OF THEM.

Today, in this period, under these leaders, with this global stage, it might seem completely reasonable to grant powers to those whom we entrust to govern us, tomorrow under a new President, and a new Congress, and a new global stage, things well me wholly different. 25 years from now you cant say "well that's not what I meant when I gave that power." Your opinion is no longer required.

Comment: Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun (Score 1) 449 449

Absolutely the opposite. I pin my hopes on the *lack* of another George Washington. I believe that the founders produced the best protection the common man has ever had. And while it is most certainly not perfect, it has not been matched in history in its primary purpose to prevent tyranny over a populace.

If that doctrine is faithfully upheld the power is rightfully in the hands of the governed, rather than those who govern. If the principles outlined therein are enforced, then it matters little who is actually in power, because the limitations on their impact to the governed is absolute. It's not until short-term populace influence modifies those powers specifically outlined by the founders grants power to those who can convince a short sighted and angry electorate to contradict the Constitution do we find ourselves in a bind.

Comment: Re:M-16? (Score 1) 449 449

It's one thing to say a business cant refuse all services to a person based on that person's inclusion in protected class (race, sex, age, etc.). It's another entirely to say that the business must participate in a private ceremony or activity that they disagree with.

I'm not remotely anti-gay. But I dont think any person should be required by government to participate in any private activity, of any kind. And just like the gay marriage cake example (which by the way I dont think government should have ANY part in recognizing or not, just like my heterosexual marriage), a Muslim baker should never be required to make a bar mitzvah cake, a T-Shirt company should not be required to print pro 2nd Amendment t-shirts, or a theater owned by a Catholic family should not be required to allow a showing of 50 Shades of Grey.

What about the case of the photographer who was sued because she wouldnt do the wedding photos for a gay wedding? What if another photographer is sued because they refuse to do the photos for a rifle demonstration? Or a military funeral? If that photographer has a problem with guns or the military, they shouldnt even be required to explain themselves, let alone provide the service.

You cant blur the lines. As soon as you do you the assholes come out of the woodwork just to be assholes.

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.