Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#48185181) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate
You carried your prejudices into your reading and never made an honest attempt to take in the text. You inserted your assumptions about Marx's religious beliefs even though the text was not about that. Approaching it from that angle you would have learned as much about communism by reading My Pet Goat.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#48185173) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

Progress==MOAR State.

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

I reject your notion that we've had any conservative Presidents

You could make an argument by stopping there. I would ask you again to consider why that would be true. Unfortunately you proceeded to shoot yourself in the foot by continuing to say

with a qualified exception for Reagan

Because Obama is factually more conservative in action than Reagan ever was. Consider:

  • The tax rate for top earners, compared to the rest of the country, is lower under Obama than it was under Reagan
  • Corporations have more freedom to ditch their employees than they had under Reagan (due in part to the lowest union membership rates this country has seen since the 1800s)
  • Federal spending on all things excluding DoD-related expenditures is lower in comparison to GDP and total federal budget under Obama than it was under Reagan

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#48183557) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

Furthermore, every conservative politician who has been trying to campaign against the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 has been campaigning to replace it with itself. This further supports the notion of Obama being deeply conservative in his actions - which are of course where his legacy will come from.

Alternatively, it supports the assertion that the country enjoys one party rule--The Progressive Party. Those understanding that this route only leads to European-style collapse, and opposing it, will be crushed.

How is it that rejecting European-style decisions at nearly every critical juncture - particularly with regards to health care and public welfare - could possibly lead to "European-style collapse"? Your thesis of "one party rule" is close to valid but you went off in a completely non-factual direction. Every political action of any consequence that has been taken in this country in the past several decades has been of a conservative - not progressive - slant.

Just as President Lawnchair is demonstrably the most conservative president our country has ever had, he is also demonstrably more conservative than any leader that has ever been elected in Europe. To claim that he is somehow making "European-style" decisions is laughably detached from reality.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#48183543) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

For you, 'comprehend' == 'agree', it seems.

Not even remotely close to true. For example, I easily comprehend that you do not wish to understand communism or to read the Communist Manifesto. I do not agree with you discarding it so readily and parading yourself about as being knowledgeable on it when you intentionally opt to not read it, but I comprehend that you have made that choice.

In other words you are being disingenuous when you claim to have read it at all. Doesn't your Lord advocate humility and warn against being a braggart?

Oh, so I don't agree with you, and thus I'm being disingenuous?

How did you reach that conclusion? I laid my argument in front of you, and your own comments support it. You have not read the Communist Manifesto and yet you are saying otherwise. You don't have to agree with me or anyone else in regards to its content, but when you intentionally are not reading it you are lying when you claim otherwise. I was previously being so kind as to merely say that you were being disingenuous but if you want to dig in your heels like this on the matter I might as well spare the courtesy and just get to the fact of the matter that you have not read the document and never made a serious attempt to do so.

You could read it and disagree with it and be genuine about it. However you are instead lying about reading it and lying about being knowledgeable on its content. Similarly you can read my comments and disagree with them but when you ignore their text and insert your own assumptions about me you are being - at very best - disingenuous about reading them. Agreement is not required for comprehension and your assertion otherwise only supports the notion that your comprehension of what I have written is perilously close to zero.

Comment: Re:Don't be ridiculous (Score 1) 250

by damn_registrars (#48181021) Attached to: No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade
I should have been more verbose. I meant that nothing made for computers today will be of any significance in 100 years. Indeed there are other things being manufactured today that will still have meaning in 100 years (although as usual we will likely come up with more efficient ways to kill each other by then).

Comment: Don't be ridiculous (Score 2) 250

by damn_registrars (#48180447) Attached to: No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade

If only the hardware that we use in computers could have such a track record.

Nobody wants 100 year old computational hardware. Giving hardware longer longevity at this point would be pointless as it becomes obsolete around the same time it fails. Would you buy a 286 PC today from someone who said it was reliable? No, of course not - and that would only be around 30 years old. Furthermore nothing that is made today will be of any significance in 100 years.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#48179949) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

I did too read ~2/3 of the Communist Manifesto, and thought it pure propaganda.

So you have not read it to completion, and you have not comprehended any of it. In other words you are being disingenuous when you claim to have read it at all. Doesn't your Lord advocate humility and warn against being a braggart?

the second is also in agreement with my consistent narrative of the current POTUS being the most conservative president in the history of our country

For some purely subjective definition of 'conservative', which actual conservatives would reject, sure.

Tell me, who is the most conservative president we have had prior to Obama? Can you show me a single bill that Obama signed that he would not have?

Furthermore, every conservative politician who has been trying to campaign against the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 has been campaigning to replace it with itself. This further supports the notion of Obama being deeply conservative in his actions - which are of course where his legacy will come from.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#48178797) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

Only if you're going to be naÃve, and claim that the Democrats somehow represent the 1% in any lesser way than the Republicans.

The failure of that statement should bother you. For it to parse one of two things must be true:

  • Your statements about the democrats being "socialists" or "communists" must be garbage as those movements are all about improving the situation for the 99%.
    • or
  • The democrats and republicans are interchangeable in the fact that they both look out only for the top percentile and never had any intention of any other outcome

Note that the first one agrees with the notion that you never made any serious attempt to read any part of the Communist Manifesto while the second is also in agreement with my consistent narrative of the current POTUS being the most conservative president in the history of our country.

So, funny man, which is it?

Comment: Re:Had you seen this one? (Score 1) 11

by damn_registrars (#48176157) Attached to: America's two-tiered justice as seen from north of the border
I think you may be expressing too much optimism towards the US penal system. You use the word "rehabilitation", but we don't believe in that in this country any more. If our system was intelligent enough to recognize rehabilitation there would have been no question on the Cornealious Anderson case where the state of Missouri attempted to re-jail a man who they had forgotten about for over a decade.

Comment: Re:MatLab is not really a good programming languag (Score 1) 193

by damn_registrars (#48175503) Attached to: The One App You Need On Your Resume If You Want a Job At Google

Long story short: Matlab is the Perl of academia.

I disagree. I have been in a variety of academic or academic-associated roles in the past couple decades and I can tell you from my experience that

Perl is the Perl of academia. Matlab is mostly used for undergrad instruction; researchers roll their own solutions mostly in Perl, with occasional ventures into Python, Java, Ruby, or C++ as needed.

Although you are certainly correct on Matlab having outrageous prices. In my current position if I wanted to buy a license myself my government/academic discount still places the cost at over $2k. Thankfully everyone working under me does their coding in languages whose code can be manipulated and run for free.

Comment: Re:I don't understand (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#48175465) Attached to: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate

Actually, I had already blogged about your boy Hunter.

So then what is there that you don't understand?

Oh, wait. You like to write first, read later (if ever). Your blog is not an indication that you have any idea of what happened or how it matches previous historical precedent. Well, I can't do anything about that; you made your bed go ahead and lay in it.

Comment: Re:Had you seen this one? (Score 1) 11

by damn_registrars (#48175451) Attached to: America's two-tiered justice as seen from north of the border

The rules for juvenile court judges are different.

Very true. However due to the magnitude of what happened as a result of his actions, he could have been charged a an adult.

If he had been a poor kid from a poor family, he wouldn't have had the same defense team, and at the least would have spent time in the juvie system.

It is quite possible that had he not been able to hire a defense team the state could have opted to try to make an example of him and charge him as an adult, to discourage kids from drinking and driving.

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...