An interesting read even though I have to admit I understand but half of it. What I didn't get is if there's a treatment path without medicine, something like the proper food, excercise regime, etc. -- because I find it hard to believe that the proper conditions cannot be created by the proper lifestyle.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Actually, if you read what you said, at least Bush was 50% declared military actions, as opposed to Obama's Zero.
Next year, the
Are the ponies powered by hot grits?
"But sir, that's the old wheel with a fresh coat of paint."
"Right, giant hammer for you then!"
If anyone knows why Gnome chose to depend on systemd, please let me know.
It was an April Fools prank taken waaaay too far.
just because they aren't fighting for -YOUR- concept of freedom, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom
Which is exactly why I cited examples where any rational person couldn't get it wrong. Nobody who is fighting for the power to take away other people's freedoms (say, of speech, assembly, religion, etc) is fighting for freedom. It's possible to objectively look at two different fights, and see where one is actually about freedom, and the other is about gaining power to deny freedom.
Your knowledge of the revolution and the governance of England is also rather lacking.
The governance of England (not to let it off the hook there, even so) was not the same as England's governance of the colonies. Don't tell me to learn more about it when you paint with a brush so broad you miss out on that reality. The Americans were fighting to be free of how England was ruling the colonies. Even if you consider the then-state-of-affairs in England to have been the model of freedom (plainly not true), the colonists did not enjoy the same liberties or representation.
That's not to sugar-coat the man Che became and his eventual ruthlessness.
"Became?" He started out that way, and didn't stop. He was no champion of a constitutional democracy. Didn't seek one, and didn't act to establish one. What he and dictators like Castro found to dislike about the regimes against which they rebelled has nothing to do with their vision for a totalitarian communist paradise. They set out to achieve what the Castros have been using violent oppression of their own people to preserve ever since.
If they were ever about freedom, they wouldn't need to lock people away or simply kill them for speaking their minds.
Education 100 years ago was not controlled by a Government body. Surely there were exceptions, but schools worked off of a certain philosophy which has been replaced. We could also argue that not everyone could go to school 100 years ago, or some such tangent which ignores the problem I brought up.
I also doubt your claim that education went from classical to Prussian 40 years ago.
Read what I wrote again. I did not state that it was done 40 years ago, I stated that it took about 40 years to remove the classical system completely from our schools. The introduction of the Prussian system was in the 1930s when the US Department of Education was formed. The founders explicitly stated that they wanted workers in industry, not people that could think. History is a marvelous thing, and all of this is well documented.
there is no requirement for a pilots liscence. you are totally off base
Yes, there is. The only way you can get a section 333 waiver is if you are a licensed pilot. Period. Here's the existing process:
Their currently proposed rule changes contemplate a simpler grade of permit, but still make no provision for BLOS flight. You'd still need to pass an FAA operator's test, and pay to sit and re-take it every year. The proposed rules also require each and every aircraft to be registered - something that makes flying continually changing prototypes off the work bench a near impossibility.
I'm not "totally off base," I'm aware of the actual situation. You're just engaged in wishful thinking, or making excuses for the administration, and hoping nobody will do any fact checking.
You really want to make the case that America of all countries has clean hands and a clean conscience in this dirty enterprise called war?
Do you mean that when a huge undertaking involving actual, you know, human beings taking action in opposition to a monstrously violent totalitarian regime sometimes involves some of those human beings doing assholish things
There is still hatred towards the Japanese over what they did
Right. Because that's what they (the country of Japan) set out to do. Cruelty and torture and rape weren't the actions of a few idiots/asshats in the Japanese army, those things were the stated tactics, the official policy, from the top down. That wasn't assholishness by abberration, and prosecuted (a la the WV guards at Abu Ghraib), that was marching orders. Your need to confuse the difference between that, and things like what Japan systematically did in China, shows you to be either completely misguided, or simply trolling. The latter, most likely.
I think it is the government subsidy part that upsets so many.
But every single form of energy is subsidized by the government. So why are we singling out solar again?
Do you feel the same way about nuclear?
All I can see is Joker role in Batman was made by Heath Ledger. He so far upstaged all the other actors it wasn't even funny.
Are you trying to suggest that Politicians are above the treatment everyone else in society receives? Do you somehow believe that even though every cable and communication you send to grandma gets archived and sifted through, people like Hillary Clinton should be exempt? Evidence provided to law enforcement agencies by the NSA can not include those "special" class of people?
No, you must have something else in mind and simply failed so state your case properly.
Casting Harrison Ford is like casting Sean Connery, you cast him because you want the character to be like that guy rather than the other way around.
Sean Connery was cast in The Longest Day as essentially comic relief. He was paired with another guy and they had 2 or 3 short back and forth one liner conversations. Of course, this was pre-James Bond
And here in the US, we are told that women are denied the chance at education
Who's "we" and who is doing the telling? There are more women in college then there are men. So, basically you're just blathering.
we are a Christian nation
They "land grabbing" revolutionaries you're complaining about fought, among other things, to tear down the form of government under which they were living
I remember when Red Dawn came out (the first one) that we discussed the differnce between freedom fighters and terrorists. The answer was history.
No, the answer is: look at what they're actually fighting for. "Freedom fighters" who fight for the opportunity to deny women the right to go to school, or to set up a regime where people who aren't willing to claim faithfulness to one single state religion are not freedom fighters. It really is that simple. US revolutionaries fought to be free from what was essentially a military dictatorship (the monarchy) that didn't provide some rather important freedom-related features (like those we see protected in our constitution). When freedom fighters are fighting for actual freedoms, then that's what they are. When "freedom fighters" are fighting to institute totalitarian rule (like, say, Che Guevara and company did) they're not freedom fighters at all. The Taliban aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting to set up a ruthless medieval theocracy. Doesn't matter what they call themselves, it's what they do.