Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:did they damage the car? (Score 1) 454

by gzuckier (#49776311) Attached to: D.C. Police Detonate Man's 'Suspicious' Pressure Cooker

Seriously? Let me know when they start rounding up dozens of people for no reason other than they believe in a different God and then they cut off their heads and post the video online. You fucking idiot, stupidity on the part of a few cops doesn't mean we're living under ISIS. Maybe you'd like to try living in the caliphate. Let me know and I'll buy the ticket if you promise to keep your ignorant fucking ass there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol... http://www.washingtonpost.com/... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... https://books.google.com/books...

Comment: Re:did they damage the car? (Score 1) 454

by gzuckier (#49775969) Attached to: D.C. Police Detonate Man's 'Suspicious' Pressure Cooker

The terrorists are the Federal Government of the United States; their enemy is We the People

Of course. Because when a bomb does go off, We the People never demand that everybody's pockets be searched ten times a day, do We the People? No, it's those Federal Government guys who are at fault, always.

Comment: Re:Fox News (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49747905) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

that's reminiscent of the argument, though, that the right hating Obama and hating his policies is just like the left hating Bush and his policies.

I must not have communicated very clearly then, since what I actually believe and was trying to communicate was something more like this...

that's reminiscent of the argument, though, that the right hating Obama and hating his policies is nothing like the left hating Bush and his policies.

oh now i get it. i should not post while awake, my mind is too jumpy.

Comment: Re:Fox News (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49746419) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

You've grossly mischaracterized me and my stances.

I said I feel an obligation to align my vote with my moral stances on issues, which I was pointing out comes at the cost of being able to align my vote with any of the other stances I may have. I never said that I find my own beliefs to be unfair or wrong. As you implied, it'd be ridiculous to knowingly hold onto ideas you're aware are wrong.

And sorry if this is a bit of a soapbox issue for me, but who said anything about hating gays? At least for me, when it comes to the hot-button topic of marriage, my firm stance is that the government should stay out of it, regardless of which way someone swings. Legal unions should be available to anyone that want them, and should come with all of the expected tax breaks and other legal benefits, plus all of the expected legal obligations and financial responsibilities. In contrast, marriage is an entirely separate concept that means different things to different people, so it's best left to individuals, organizations, or religions to decide whether they want to ignore it, treat it as a pleasant tradition, or incorporate it into their religious practices.

Speaking more broadly, sure, I consider homosexuality to be a sinful practice based on what the Bible says, but I could say the same about eating too much, lying, getting drunk, stealing, or even just engaging in lustful thoughts, so it's always struck me as incongruous that homesexuals get singled out as being a group that I allegedly hate. What about the others? Why don't I get accused of hating them too? After all, from what I can tell, I have just as much cause to hate drunks, gluttons, and people with filthy minds...

...which is to say, I have no cause to hate them at all. Everyone sins on a regular basis, myself included (including some of the sins I've already listed!). Being a sinner is not a valid reason to hate someone, and thank God for that, since if it was we'd all be miserable, self-loathing people. The Bible isn't filled with kumbaya love, but it does say that God loves us all, so who am I to hate those He chooses to love? The Bible also says that God hates sin wherever it is and that even one sin is enough to face judgment, so who am I to act as if I'm in any way superior when I'm subject to the same judgment? And the Bible says that it's God's job to judge others, not mine, so I have no business being judgmental, let alone hateful towards anyone else, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I get that there are religious types who can and do engage in hateful attitudes towards homosexuals, and it's hopefully obvious by now what my stance is towards the validity of those attitudes. But what about our shared responsibility to assess people on their own merits, rather than on the basis of a convenient stereotype that lets us marginalize them? As a site, we're too quick to apply the "hateful and intolerant" religious stereotype label to folks around here as soon as they profess a religious belief, without ever finding out what they actually believe.

Yes, stereotypes oftentimes have a basis in reality, and you'll run into people for whom the stereotype is a good fit, but that doesn't excuse us to dismiss people according to racial, religious, gender, national, or sexual orientation stereotypes that don't fit, just because they fall into one of those categories. We all should be making a concerted effort to stamp out bigotry, whether it's aimed at someone on the basis of their religion, their sexual orientation, or some other irrelevant piece of data.

that's reminiscent of the argument, though, that the right hating Obama and hating his policies is just like the left hating Bush and his policies. The difference is that, although the left didn't really like Bush, the real hatred came as a result of his policies; the war in Iraq, and the conversion of the budget surplus into a deficit. whereas obama was the satanic muslim socialist america hater from day 1, and so even a recycled republican gem like the ACA became the fruit of the poisoned tree.

Comment: Re:Fox News (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49746201) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

You handle illegal immigrants as they are caught. We're not going to deport all of them obviously. We're not even going to come close.

What we need to do is not encourage more illegal immigration. Not enforcing our immigration laws and granting amnesty will only serve to increase illegal immigration. See amnesty in the '80s.

There is no reason we should feel obligated to live up to the words in The New Colossus. It's a nice poem especially relevant at the time it was written since we were a vast land with more resources than people. It's not part of the Constitution nor codified into law in any other way.

We do deport illegal immigrants as they are caught. Granting amnesty for past immigrants doesn't encourage new immigrants. firstly, the past immigrants didn't need that encouragement, they came here anyway. secondly, net immigration from Mexico is now 0. thirdly, the immigrants who are now coming here are those 12 year olds fleeing being drafted into narco-gangs in Central America, and they're not deciding on the basis of the odds of being granted amnesty down the line, they're trying to live another few weeks. And, fact is, refugees do get amnesty, or at least should, by American law, even though we're violating that by sending these kids back.

Comment: Re:Fox News (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49746151) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Immigration amnesty is a foregone conclusion. You just can't do anything else. There's more than ten million illegal immigrants, what are you going to do about it? Round them up like it's Auschwitz? No, it's time to live up to the words engraved on our Statue of Liberty. This is a nation of immigrants, the current incumbents need to stop being dicks to the new arrivals.

The idea behind immigration amnesty is that when it's implemented, American citizens won't wake up the next morning with their whole lives overturned, the way it would happen if all the tomato pickers, house construction workers, roof repairmen, housecleaners, baby sitters, etc. all vanished overnight.
Amnesty! What a disaster that would be! Everybody would wake up and find that overnight, things remained the same! OMIGOD!

Comment: Re:Fox News (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49746091) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

One channel to oppose CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and many many other dogmatic spokes channels for the left. yes Fox is biased to the right, but so are all the others to the left, for any hope at accurate news you have to read/watch across the spectrum and filter the propaganda from both sides.

Why would the media all be biased left? Is there a law there? Are conservatives prevented from starting theitr own channel? Other than Fox News? Could it be that there isn't a market for rightwing media? What does that mean in terms of your interpretation of the public sentiment? conservative theory; anything that isn't going their way is some sort of shady doings by some sort of evil people, because god knows blame must be placed, and it isn't going to be placed on the thinkings and doings of the rightwingers. self-examination, self-doubt, that's a liberal thing.

Comment: Re:One Assumption (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49746029) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.

That's interesting, I thought it was "Taxed Enough Already."

"Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes" http://www.teaparty-platform.c...
to be fair, reduce the national debt comes in second. Which brings up the fascinating question of how we are going to reduce taxes, and reduce the debt, all at the same time; as well as why they hate Obama, who is reducing the national debt without raising taxes.

Comment: Re:One Assumption (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49739617) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.

That's interesting, I thought it was "Taxed Enough Already."

Tea Party's issue: Most definitely not the national debt we owe to our African American citizens whose ancestor were enslaved, and the accrued generations of wealth from the products of their lifetimes of labor that was stolen from them.

Comment: Re:One Assumption (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49739607) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Quote: "The Tea Party and similar ultra conservative factions are forcing Republicans to keep fighting culture wars. . ."

The Tea Party has no position on cultural issues. The Tea Party has no position on gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, or drug legalization. It's a one-issue group, just like the NRA is a one-issue group. The NRA's issue is guns. The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.

I know, there are many in this world who will try to tell you different. Most of those are either liberals trying to tar the Tea Party, or social conservatives trying to hijack it. Neither group are tea partiers. (And IMHO, Ted Cruz is no Tea Partier either. He walked away from us to do his own thing shortly after getting elected.)

OK, let's go with that, and relate it to their hatred of Obama and rabid desire to overthrow his disastrous rule of terror: "Tea Party Needs A New Issue: Federal Deficit Really, Truly Is Disappearing" http://www.forbes.com/sites/st... says Forbes magazine, of all socialist leftie rags.

Comment: Re:Fox News (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49739585) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Fox News, perhaps the greatest grassroots triumph of the Republican Party since Reagan left office, is starting to become a liability for the party. Sure, it's evening newscasts still trounce CNN and the others in the ratings, but everyone (including Republicans themselves) views Fox News as the voice of the GOP. And it's a dogmatic, right wing voice down the line on economic and domestic issues, the voice the helped destroy the Republican Party in the northeast (practically all of the party's leading politicians there have been derided as RINOs by the rest of the party). It appeals most directly to older white voters, as TFS points out; these are the people who tune in night after night to watch Bill O'Reilly.

Personally, as a former independent who now votes consistently Democratic, I'd love to see the revival of the northeast Republican wing of the party. It was the POV of pragmatic businessmen, not conservative ideologues who wanted to enforce the teachings of the Bible while ensuring that America "stood tall" militarily in the Middle East, and against Russia.

Predictably, the utility of Fox News to the Republicans has caused the Republicans to become their captive. (Kind of like the Republicans always saying how the Democrats have captured black America with handouts). Riding the tiger, can't get off, etc. In fact the Republican party has become, in effect, the political wing of Fox News. As observed that the real goal of all these Republican presidential contenders is to get a commentator slot on Fox, like Huckabee.

Comment: Re:Chicago skew (Score 1) 609

by gzuckier (#49739569) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Did the study factor in the known phenomenon of dead Democrats voting in Chicago?

I take it you are of the opinion that if they purged all the dead Democrats in the Chicago voting rolls, Illinois would shift from its current 47-35 Democrat voter majority and be solid Republican? That must be some of that Republican make your own reality math skills we hear about.

Invest in physics -- own a piece of Dirac!

Working...