Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: First Among Equals (Score 1) 178

In a deliberative body that's chock-full of dumb sonsabitches, Louis Gohmert stands head and shoulders above them all.

Here's my favorite Louis Gohmert quote.

On gays in the military:

"I’ve had people say, ‘Hey, you know, there’s nothing wrong with gays in the military. Look at the Greeks. Well, you know, they did have people come along who they loved that was the same sex and would give them massages before they went into battle. But you know what, it’s a different kind of fighting, it’s a different kind of war and if you’re sitting around getting massages all day ready to go into a big, planned battle, then you’re not going to last very long. It’s guerrilla fighting. You are going to be ultimately vulnerable to terrorism and if that’s what you start doing in the military like the Greeks did as people have said, ‘Louie, you have got to understand, you don’t even know your history.’ Oh yes I do. I know exactly. It’s not a good idea."

Want another?

Regarding caribou and the oil pipeline:

"So when caribou want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline. ... So my real concern now is if oil stops running through the pipeline ... do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?"

Comment: Re:The 30 and 40-somethings wrote the code... (Score 1) 337

by PopeRatzo (#49614567) Attached to: Recruiters Use 'Digital Native' As Code For 'No Old Folks'

I remember my father having to get out the suitcase of a portable computer that work had assigned him, set it up on the dining room table, and dial-in to the mainframe to fix broken batch jobs on weekends occasionally.

I had one of these.

Still have it, out in the garage next to dried up paint cans and copies of Argosy magazine. And before you ask, no, "dried up paint can" is not a euphemism for my first wife's corpse.

Comment: Re:"Tax the rich" canard (Score 1) 386

by PopeRatzo (#49608637) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

well, nice to know we can still throw around insults unjustifiably and misrepresent my views on things....

Now brother, you know I wasn't endorsing any 100% taxation policy, and yet you purposely tried to represent my comment in which I specifically said I wasn't endorsing said policy as supporting it.

I get a little touchy.

100% is ridiculous. As we've seen during the prosperous 1950s, 90% is a perfectly good top tax rate, and with the steadily falling deficit, we'll be OK as long as we don't elect Hillary Clinton or any of the Republicans. Because make no mistake, either of those alternatives will lead us back to war and recession before the cement is dry at the Obama library.

Comment: Re:More religious whackjobs (Score 1) 267

I didn't mean to make light of your insightful and informative comment about the telescope project and the effects of inequality on Hawaiians.

However, I bet Monsanto can give you lots of studies about why GMOs would be a miraculous boon for Hawaii and Dole can cite studies showing that a lower minimum wage in Hawaii would be terrific for poor Hawaiians.

Comment: Re:More religious whackjobs (Score 1) 267

That said, they did an economic study here on what would happen

So, the Army did a study saying that if the Army had to leave Hawaii it would be just awful for Hawaii.

I get it (^wink-)

I'm about to embark on a study which will show that if Scarlett Johansson doesn't sleep with me, it'll be a horrible outcome for Scarlett Johansson, possibly costing her $1.3 billion.

Comment: Re:The problem is Big Government (Score 1) 172

by PopeRatzo (#49607229) Attached to: FBI Slammed On Capitol Hill For "Stupid" Ideas About Encryption

Sorry, but that is a highly anti-scientific approach.

Wait a minute. How is THIS an "anti-scientific approach"?

This is the entirety of my statement:

I would highly recommend people google "Trevor Loudon" and make their own decisions about him.

All I'm recommending is that people google "Trevor Loudon" and read his articles and watch his YouTube videos and decide about his evidence for themselves. What's wrong with that approach in your eyes? It's exactly what you recommended in your comment about him.

If you google "Trevor Loudon" you will find the first couple pages of results are entirely articles that praise Mr Loudon from important sources such as The Blaze, and The very first search result is Trevor Loudon's own blog. Why would you be afraid of people finding that out?

You're a fucking nutbag, you are. You don't even want people to read Trevor Loudon's actual writings when you are here promoting him?

Comment: Re:"Tax the rich" canard (Score 1) 386

by PopeRatzo (#49607183) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

and how do you plan to

Dumbshit, what part of, "I'm not endorsing that policy, only pointing out that blockquote you decided to put in bold face, was in fact, boldly untrue." do you not understand?

I'm not in favor of taxing millionaires at 100% any more than you're in favor of allowing felons to own guns or legalizing rape.

Oh wait...

Comment: Re:"Tax the rich" canard (Score 1) 386

by PopeRatzo (#49606273) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Your response might've been meaningful, if the 100% tax on "the rich" would have covered your figure. And not even then

My response was only to point out that your assertion that taxing millionaires at 100% would only cover 1/3 of the deficit was untrue. That's all. Don't get yourself excited to refute some points I wasn't making.

In fact, my number for the current deficit of $750 billion was too high. It's closer to $550 billion, so taxing millionaires at 100% would in fact cover it and leave a hundred billion or so left over to pay for health care for everyone.

I'm not endorsing that policy, only pointing out that blockquote you decided to put in bold face, was in fact, boldly untrue.

Are we cool now?

Comment: Re:idgi (Score 1) 587

by slimjim8094 (#49604045) Attached to: My High School CS Homework Is the Centerfold

Leaving aside the fact that we are not discussing an image that is pornography nor of a nude woman - it is face and top-of-shoulders, which makes all of this irrelevant...

Your own link goes on to discuss (immediately after the section you quote!) how there is not universal agreement on what is objectifying, including pornography. I happen to think that a woman should be allowed to express herself however she wishes, including sexually, and specifically that she is smart enough to decide if she wants to let someone pay her to take pictures of her and put them in a magazine. I think it's pretty bigoted that you disagree. Presumably you are not so paternalistic to think that this woman, in her simple way, didn't realize that men would be sexually desiring this picture of her. So who is being harmed, exactly? She wasn't taken advantage of by any stretch of the definition. Everybody's happy except the anti-sex second-wave feminists, who missed the boat in the 90s. (Third-wave feminism generally views "bad porn as bad", in the sense that nobody should be exploited into making porn but that it is OK to choose to do so and choose to consume)

And to answer your question I don't generally take the concerns of religious extremists into account, whether they are ISIS or the "god hates fags" folks or someone who is so far gone that they think sexuality itself demeans women.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.