I don't want to copy and paste stuff, so here's the response I gave to the other "Southern strategy" guy. http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Right, so the party that ended slavery, desegregated schools and gave blacks the right to vote is the one all the racists went flocking to. Let's go back and look at how many Democrats voted for the civil rights act of 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Oh nos! A majority of Democrats voted against the act!! There goes your theory!

And then there's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... Robert Byrd. Served as a Democrat senator all the way up to 2010 and was a member of the KKK!. Oh yeah, and he filibustered the 1964 civil rights act! But that was pretty common for the Democrats, after all Al Gore's father http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.... filibustered the bill for 83 days! Quite an achievement for anyone. I'm sure Al Gore Jr. is proud of his pop for keepin' the blackies outa white schools.

So yeah, the whole "switcharoo" never happened. It's just a sad excuse used by "modern" Democrats to try and disavow what is now quite unpopular. But don't you worry, the Democrats are going to bring slavery back to the whole country in the form of massive unsustainable statism!

Listen to this guy. It really sounds like he's talking about socialism:

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.
-Abraham Lincoln

Nope. That's the first Republican president talking about slavery. And the tyrants he's talking about? Democrats.

But don't let facts get in the way of your frothing hatred of people you obviously don't understand.

I know you're kidding around, but make sure that you know the KKK was run as a militant arm of the Democrat party to run Republicans out of town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

Pretty sure it's from the non-partisan GAO, not the "Republican house". Anyhow, why would the source matter, what matters is if it is true or not. It seems that's not something you even considered.

Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

I only wonder what we call lies about the lie? Is that like... somehow a lie multiplier?

If you're a farmer and you're getting charged more for deliveries you either get fewer deliveries or you charge more for your food. Either way the flow of resources is sane, that is, people pay for the services they receive and nobody pays for someone else. Once you start making arbitrary judgments that "these" people need subsidies you run the risk of massive abuse, which is what we undeniably have today. Nobody is wise or fair enough to compel other people to give up a portion of their wealth, which is the same as your time and therefore your life, to someone else.

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.

-Abraham Lincoln

People argue that the reason the USPS thing is different is because 'my taxes pay for the USPS!'. No, they don't. The USPS is funded entirely on it's product sales and services.

Actually, allowing the USPS to avoid paying taxes of any sort is really a huge subsidy from taxpayers. And that's just the tip of a huge iceberg of benefits that the USPS sucks from the taxpayer's teet.

The USPS doesn't have a choice in the matter and to boot are forced to fund their things into the future no private company could or would ever fund.

Actually, unlike government entities, all private companies are compelled by rule of law to not spend pension funds on their business. The government has never been shy about misappropriating pension funds, just look at how more than 50% of all social security is "borrowed" by the general fund, so much that over 60 TRILLION has been borrowed. If a private company did anything like that the execs would be serving very long prison sentences. But hey! It's the government! So it's all good!

This is the exact problem with the USPS - they are delivering to all the not-so-profitable rural areas for UPS, FedEx and DHL

And nobody likes it. Because USPS service is as slow as any government entity and terrible - and that's not just "my opinion" that's when compared to any other service by any measure including cost. People that live in not so profitable areas need to pay more for living there, not offset the cost on other customers that have done nothing to deserve it. People should pay for the services they get and shouldn't have to pay for someone else. UPS, FedEx or DHL would certainly deliver to these places if the price was right, they just find it more profitable to basically have their delivery service subsidized by taxpayers. And why would you blame them? If someone was walking around handing out $100 bills would you say no?

And despite all of that USPS is still failing. Just shows that you can't run a private company like a government bureaucracy even if you don't have to pay taxes. No wonder everyone avoids USPS like it was the plague. The only way people want to deal with USPS is if there's some money in it for them and that money eventually comes out of the taxpayer's backside.

The government breaks your legs and then gives you a crutch and says "See! If not for the government you wouldn't be able to walk!"

So let's go ultra worse case and say that all 550 "dead zones" (I don't know why we're using quotes here, but everyone else is so...) are as bad as the Mississippi dead zone, with a little rounding let's say that it's 5000/square miles per dead zone, that's 550*5000/square miles = 2500000. Now according to Wikipedia ...

The area of the World Ocean is 361 million square kilometers (139 million square miles),[21]

That makes our worse case 2500000 / 139000000 = 0.0179856115107914 or 0.17% of the worlds oceans. Is "killing" (more quotes) 0.17% of the ocean to feed the world with cheap and abundant food saving millions from starvation a good enough reason? I'm not one to judge! Who's to say what the value of 0.17% of the ocean in the middle of nowhere is worth!

What I think is a more pressing matter is the fact that the state of Connecticut has been used without going through the proper RFC process. How am I supposed to know how to accurately convert states of Connecticut to Pyramids of Giza or Olympic sized swimming pools. For that matter, I'm not even sure if I shouldn't' be comparing this to Libraries of Congress! It's 2014 people! We live in a society bound by laws! People have got to learn!

Ah, it's been too long! I remembered the speed holes but not the story! I know it's the mob that makes the speed holes ;)

From the Simpsons
Car salesman: "These are speed holes, they make the car go faster"
Krusty: "Oh yeah, speed holes"
http://www.mercedescla.org/for...

Ok, but 10 simultaneous HDD failures of key individuals related to the targeting scandal? Seems like quite the coincidence.

You can't read Eich's mind. I am in favor of gay marriage but not in favor of the court's ruling against prop 8. Don't understand that? I didn't think so. There was a Constitutional amendment passed in the state that banned gay marriage, but somehow the courts decided that the amendment was unconstitutional! What?! You can't deny that the precedent set here is a terrifying one. The will of the people was thrown under the bus! I am a libertarian so I don't much care of some dude marries another dude, but I take issue with lawyers overriding Constitutional amendments! You can fight for your cause, but not like that, it erodes trust in our system. Today, the Constitution of California isn't worth the paper it's printed on thanks to a small group of people who felt their own right to marry was more important than the civil society itself.

The issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Why, for example, is one getting into all sorts of trouble for opposing — not gay sex — gay marriage, but, for example, glamorizing Che Guevara is deemed perfectly acceptable?

Amen brother! Che was a despicable murderer that promoted a despicable murderer and a murderous ideology. People who sport the Che shirt usually not communists, just really, really stupid.

Odd, I thought being a CEO made you an employer, you know, one of those "job creators"

No, as the CEO you're an employee. You can be fired. Although you may have a say so in hiring decisions, you are not an employer and you don't sign pay checks. It would be like saying a department manager is an employer because he can hire or fire people.

By the way - one point a lot of people seem to be missing here is that as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena

So you're basically saying that he's guilty of maybe doing something in the future? There is no evidence to suggest that he would allow his personal views to influence his decisions as CEO. If follow that logic then nobody that has any sort of political affiliation should be in any sort of decision making position lest they allow their personal beliefs to influence decision making.

And funny how you've convicted him of this behavior in your mind before you have any sort of evidence to suggest that he would do that.

I find it rather ironic that the supposed champions of intolerance are the ones that are demonstrably the most intolerant.

On the other hand the "alarmist" logic is: "we already know the cause of the warming, it is humans saturating the atmosphere with too much CO2, we just need to gather and/or create the evidence to support this theory". That's called inductive logic, and is just as unscientific as what you describe coming from the "denialists".

"Real" science comes from gathering evidence and basing your theories on the evidence gathered. You then determine what it might take to falsify your theory and try as hard as possible to falsify it.

All I see from the "alarmist" camp is people trying to support their theories at all costs, calling things causation where there is barely correlation, and making very little if any effort to falsify their theories. This behavior is more akin to religion than any sort of science.