Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Fucking idiots (Score 1) 1532

Isn't the food safety and inspection program funded by user fees from the agricultural/packing industry?

That's Socialism.
That's always been Socialism.
The fact that I never mentioned it's Socialism before a black man got into the White House is irrelevant, I've always known that is Socialism.


Comment Re:Fucking idiots (Score 3) 1532

We'd be better off with a slim majority republican house and senate

Considering that in the last election 1.4 million more people voted Democrat than Republican for the House, and 10.1 million more people voted Democrat than Republican for Senate, your proposal sounds Fair and Balanced.

Just about everyone on here will want to blame the Republicans but in reality it takes two tango and the Democrats don't want to negotiate

Yep.... it takes two to tango... if the Senate voted 41 times to pass a draconian gun control law knowing they didn't have the votes to ever pass it the House, and then the Senate refused to pass any budget unless the budget also contained the gun control law they wanted, yep..... the House Republicans would be equally at fault for "failing to negotiate" when they repeatedly voted a budget without the unrelated Gun Control legislation attached.

The House Republicans aren't trying to pass a budget with reduced or eliminated funding for Obamacare.... they are trying to attach a non-budget piece of legislation to the budget bill.... threatening (and following through on the threat) to nuke the goddamn national economy if they aren't given their unrelated new non-budget law.

the Democrats don't want to negotiate they want to use the shut down as a political tool

You're right the Senate Democrats didn't negotiate.... the Senate Democrats passed the Budget sent to them by House Republicans.
That warrants emphasis.
Senate Democrats passed the Republican's budget.
They passed the budget from House Republicans without argument and without modification, other than dropping the non-budget legislation that the House sent along with the budget.

There is no middle ground anymore theres the far left and the far right

Some people say the sun rises in the east, others say the sun rises in the west. Obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There were all those radical rightwing TeaParty legislator elected, and all those radical leftwing Occupy legislators elected, and the Republican Party letting those TeaParty nutjobs run the show, and the Democrats letting those Occupy nutjobs run the show, and both sides are equally to blame.

Oh wait, no.... Democrats haven't been electing wingnuts, much less let them take control.


Comment Re:Fucking idiots (Score 2) 1532

If you mean taking the simple number of voters per winner

No, he was talking about total number of votes. One point four million more people voted for Democrats in House races than voted for Republicans.

One million then it's a meaningless statistic due to all the obvious factors.

It doesn't make the current legislature any more or less legitimate than other legislatures. The system is imperfect, sometimes it sucks, whatever.

However is a completely meaningful and valid point when it's being used to refute the notion of the Republican-House-Majority reflecting or measuring the popular will of the people.

The prior poster was suggesting that a majority of the people voted for Republicans in the House and that Obama won the presidency because some percentage of them split their vote in order to vote against Romney. And that's just plain wrong. A majority voted Democrat for president, and a majority voted Democrat for the House. There was no "split" in popular vote there.


Comment Re:Fucking idiots (Score 3) 1532

They also re-elected a GOP majority in the House

For the House, Democrats got a MILLION more votes in than Republicans. The Republican majority was elected by gerrymandering. I accept that the system is imperfect and sometimes sucks, I'm not denying the legislative authority of the duly elected legislature. However it does completely invalidate your attempt to associate that house majority with a completely fictional popular-public mandate.

As to the claim but electing Obama was a referendum on the ACA that is equally stupid.

Considering Obama made it a central issue of his presidency, and a central issue of his campaign, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to claim an anti-ACA mandate based on the negative one million votes by which the Republicans won the house.

Polls show half the country thought the law was already fully in effect until last week

Firstly, polls show a majority against Obamacare only when you include the percentage who "oppose Obamacare" only because it didn't go far enough and establishing a Single-Payer system.
Secondly, a comical percentage poll in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" and opposed to "Obamacare". A substantial percentage of opposition have no clue that ACA=Obamacare, and that a substantial percentage of oppositions is nothing more than clueless echoing of hollow "Obamacare is somehow bad" soundbites.

That is why our government was designed to operate with Checks and Balances. The budget ( and requiring it to start in a specific body at that ) is a clearly intended to put a hard limit on how far away the other two entities President and Senate are allowed to deviate from the will of the House. If the House ( the peoples body ) really hates something they absolutely should be able to kill it using this method.

It's interesting how you conveniently forget that one of the checks is that the House can't legislate anything, including budge decisions, without approval of the Senate. And they can't do so without Presidential approval, unless they can get a 2/3 mandate from both the House and Senate.

It also doesn't much help your case when the "will" of a majority of the House members is to drop the current shutdown bullshit and pass a clean budget, and it's John Boehner blocking blocking that easily passed bipartisan budget from coming to a vote. For internal party-politics reasons Boehner is allowing the radical minority TeaParty wing to burn down the house if they don't get what they want.

Does anyone who has really thought about this want the budget to become a political nuclear weapon?

Yes it absolutely should be.

Okey dokey... how about the Senate refuses to pass any budget.... zero dollars for border control.... zero dollars for the military... unless it's attached to some issue... lets say radical gun control. Here's a list of what sorts of guns are illegal, and it's a felony prison sentence if you don't turn in or destroy any illegal guns. There ya go. Using the budget as a nuclear weapon.

This is exactly why the TeaParty idiots are unfit to govern, and why the Republican party as a whole has become unfit to govern for letting the TeaParty wingnuts run the show. Because BurnTheHouseDown ideological extremism is DESTRUCTIVE. It's hurting the economy, it's hurting people, it's hurting the Nation. In a Democracy we're supposed accept that sometimes we just don't have the votes to get what we want, and we don't fucking threaten to blow up the goddamn country with nuclear weapons like a bunch of terrorists if laws aren't passed/changed/repealed to our liking.

It's not even like they are fighting over the budget, and saying they don't want to provide funding for ACA. They are demanding a change in law be passed, completely unrelated to the budget, and using the budget as a nuclear weapon to fucking blow up the country if their unrelated law doesn't get passed. No different than the Senate using the budget as a nuclear weapon to get a budget-unrelated gun control law passed.... when they know they just plain don't have the votes to pass that completely unrelated law.


Comment Re: Fucking idiots (Score 1) 1532

An almost endless series of scientific studies have thoroughly refuted the null hypothesis. The proportion of homophobes who are homosexual is strongly different from the proportion of homosexuality the general population. Homophobes are several times more likely than the general public to have an erectile response to gay porn, to spend more time looking at gay porn images when given a variety of images, and to have a faster reaction time for homosexual terms when when the test primed them for self-identification.

For example in this study two thirds of non-homophobic men showed no erectile response to a gay porn video, while 80% of homophobic men did have an erectile response.

Homophobes being active or repressed gay is a cliche because it's typically true, especially among the loudest most driven anti-gay crusaders. There is a reason they're driven.

Other research has found that such individuals are also highly likely to have been raised in very authoritarian and repressive homes. In such a home it would be emotionally dangerous or even physically dangerous for a child to express any homosexual inclination. In such a situation it becomes a survival mechanism for a child to develop an intense hostile internal repression of homosexual inclinations. This internal hostile repression is then directed outward at anyone and anything that threatens to evoke their internal repression.


Comment There's three nominees (Score 0) 273

Edward Snowden, the fugitive American former intelligence worker, has made the shortlist of three for the Sakharov prize, Europe's top human rights award. Mr Snowden was nominated by Green politicians in the European Parliament for leaking details of U.S. surveillance. Nominees also include Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager shot in the head for demanding education for girls.

I will tell you, it is three nominees. Snowden, Malala, and the - what's the third one there? Let's see. OK. Snowden, Malala , and...
The third nominee, Snowden, Malala, and, let's see. I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry.

But whoever it is ain't winning, because whatever they did was like totally lame compared to Snowden exposing U.S. government spying and Malala getting shot in the head for wanting girls for go to school.


Comment Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 183

The difference is that anonymity means they can still collect all your information, just not your identity.

There's no change in what Canonical collects. It's still the exact same spyware as before. Canonical merely says now that they'll try not to hand out your IP address to other people when they hand out your local searches.


Comment Re:ok, no worries then (Score 1) 347

You can add to that: objects which cost $22 to print.

The choice is:
(A) Keep printer materials on hand and use $22 worth of material to self-print the object now, or
(B) Waste $10 of my my time and $1 of gas heading to home depot to pay $9.99 for it.

It doesn't matter if it costs more to print something than it costs in a store. They're a lot of value in not having to run out to buy something.


Slashdot Top Deals

Have you reconsidered a computer career?