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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Never (Score 1) 369

I'm a libertarian.


I think electoral college protects minority interests

I'm having trouble reconciling these 2 things... The EC doesn't protect minority interests at all, except where minority interest is defined as states with more land than people... Which are not a statistical minority in either aggregate population or number of states...

Other than that, you do sound pretty libertarian.

Comment Re:Obvious bigot (Score 1) 90

DNC split into 2 parties, as you said, and 51 of the 54 that split went back to the DNC for life and were welcomed.

That's not really relevant, but it is true. It's not relevant, because it says nothing about the voters and the fact that Republicans came to take up the positions those Democrats held. Today's Republican platform is the Dixiecrat platform of the 60s, in terms of social policy.

Again, I ask you, did the south magically go from 100% blue in 1964 to almost 100% red today because the voters all had a change of heart? Or did the parties change to reflect the voters?

Nothern Democrats came to dominate National Democratic party politics, and the Republicans were failing against the Democrats in the North. The Republicans had to take on the southern voters if they wanted to stay relevant, just as the Democrats required them before they came to dominate the North. The shift is obvious. Education didn't fail me, but logic fails you.

Comment Re:Obvious bigot (Score 0) 90

Just ask yourself this,
Did the South become Republican in the 20th century, or did the Republicans become beholden to the Southern Vote?
The geographic representative map for the vote on the CRA/1964 makes it pretty clear who was against Civil Rights, and it wasn't a Party. it was a geographical location.

Comment Re:Obvious bigot (Score 1) 90

Lets clarify.. Republicans - Ended slavery, Democrats opposed to the point of a shooting war. Republicans - Pushed Civil Rights, Democrats (specifically their honored KKK member like Robert Byrd with the help of Al Gore) opposed Republicans - Pushed for women to vote, Democrats opposed.

Almost all true.
Civil Rights legislation was pushed by Northern Democrats. Northern Republicans simply rode the wave after balking for a decade.
You could argue the Dems stole their win on that one, but it's also important to understand that the Democratic party was split into 2 very separate parties at that point in time, more or less, along the mason-dixon line.

Again, the bigotry espoused by the Democratic party, which absolutely cannot be denied, was a north/south issue, not a democrat/republican issue.
More Democrats voted for Civil Rights than Republicans. A larger percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights than Democrats. This is because the Democratic party was split north/south, but still had a commanding majority in the north, where the Republicans had zero presence in the south.

The only pattern I see is your willful ignorance to the nuances of the actual demographic split and attempt at turning political parties into your favorite sports team.

Comment Re: Linux Wns. Trump Wins. (Score 0) 90

A larger *percentage* of Republicans voted for it, however, a larger number of Democrats voted for it.
The reason for this, is as I noted, in 1964, the racists were still Democrats. Almost *all* Republicans were in the Northern States.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:
House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34

Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6

I misspoke when I said, "took a stand against".
The more accurate telling would be,
After the Northern Democrats (the Majority of Democratic, and all electoral representation) led the charge on the Civil Rights Act after a decade of Republicans balking at it, the Southern Democratic voters began to jump ship to the Republican party. At this point, the Republican party slowly began to realize the electoral clout that gained them and started taking stands against Civil Rights to win over that base.
The Civil Rights Act of 1966 was defeated due to Republicans siding with the Southern Democrats.
The parties follow their constituencies. The divide is really north/south, not Republican/Democrat.
The Southern voters have always been racist. They were when they voted Democrat, and they were when they moved to voting Republican.
For the time-frames where the majority of Republican congressional representation was Northern Republicans, the Republicans supported Civil Rights.
You'll note that the 4 main states worth of electoral votes that Barry Goldwater took in 1964 were the deep south.
At this time, Dixiecrats still existed, so it still behooved the racists down in Dixie to vote democratic in congressional representation.

Again- the divide in political beliefs with regard to race and civil rights isn't blue or red- it's north or south.
The South votes Republican today. Do the math.

Comment Re: Linux Wns. Trump Wins. (Score -1, Offtopic) 90

Trolls are gonna troll.
That hasn't been the case since the Republican party took a stand against the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s. Certainly true before then, but after that the racists jumped ship and we got The Southern Strategy in Republican electoral politics.

btw, fuck you for talking out of your ass like there's some kind of truth to your poison, Spicer.

Comment Re:Finally (Score 1) 361

And the responder that you responded to was arguing the point that it isn't wasn't the weirdness of people that made them successful, but their initial economic standing.
That's not reductionism, it's a counter point that you're trying to disagree with by attacking its logical validity. I'm not defending reductionism, you're just manipulative as hell.

Comment Re:Finally (Score 1) 361

You dropped "get a product out the door" as if you believed being rich was enough

I was obviously defending the assertion of the guy you responded to. The one where he said...

I don't think it is their wierdness that made them succesful It is that they were BORN rich. They went from being very rich to being super rich. Being born rich is the key qualifier for success.

Get it?

We're talking about getting shit done and being successful. Why are you stuck on "being rich"?

Well.... you were arguing whether being rich was enough... your words. You have a confusing form of logic, buddy.

Comment Re:Death To All Jews (Score 1) 920

Sure, Mexico was definitely planning on taking it over again, but they had no force projection at the time and Texas was self-governing.

That's mostly correct. There were a few excursions of the Texans into Mexican territory, which were soundly rebuffed, and a few Mexican excursions into Texas territory that were successful, but they couldn't really maintain an occupation. (San Antonio)
However, the forces Santa Anna was able to rally for the Mexican-American war would have been more than enough to take Austin and every other seat of government in Texas.
I do agree that Texas/Mexico is nothing like Israel/Palestine... I was just pointing out that the independence of Texas was questionable, being unrecognized by most of the world, and unable to rebuff Mexican excursions into their territory.

Comment Re:Death To All Jews (Score 1) 920

Being anti-Zionist means you don't support the notion of a national Jewish homeland

Therein lies our disagreement.
I absolutely support the idea of them having their little chunk of land carved up in the UN mandate. I don't support their claim to all the land that they had once conquered and then lost for a couple thousand years.

While we're dabbling in "in generals," Zionism almost always means support for an Israeli homeland... in *all* of what used to be Israel before the Romans had their way with them.

Comment Re:Shade, eh? (Score 1) 126

Just hobby- I wasn't trying to imply that I'm a professional... I'm a software engineer, not a digital arts guy.

Beyond that, how many people who are using Gimp because they are too cheap to pay for Photoshop, have $4000+ to spend on one of these laptops?

That's what I meant to reply to...

Now to the point of professionals and software suites, I do have some interesting anecdotes... Where I work, our executive in charge of the graphic designers (an older gentleman) uses Photoshop exclusively, but 2 of our youngest graphic designers use Ubuntu laptops and Gimp. We don't do video, so I can't answer to that.

Slashdot Top Deals

A hacker does for love what others would not do for money.