Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 284

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.

Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.

Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?

What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?

Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.

Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.

Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?

Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.

Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.

They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He knows he can't get what he wants past a legislature more inclined to protect those rights. He fails on that front because what he proposes - usually in the wake of some broken person killing some people - fails on the face of it to even address the actual problem (broken people). He doesn't propose making it easier to lock up crazy people, he proposes making it harder for law abiding, non-violent people to possess or transfer a firearm ... even though that would exactly nothing to stop, say, a Sandy Hook type incident. So every time he talks about "using his pen" to limit rights, it fails because, of course, people see right through the total lack of causality in the chain of things he pretends he's addressing. He's had multiple unconstitutional executive orders smacked down in the courts, exactly as they should have been. Hillary Clinton wants a court that would prevent those checks and balances from impacting her agenda (see above-mentioned confiscatory sensibilities and assertion that, for example, the second amendment doesn't mean what the founders said it means).

Comment Re:Something you have, something you know (Score 1) 198

As for the greater ramifications of the unprecedentedly broad warrant that was issued, well, I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and don't live there. And I'm increasingly reluctant to travel there as well, precisely because of things like this.

Where do you live that you think is better?

Comment Re:After watching (Score 1) 247

This seems to be a particular problem with America today. Not a generation ago,

If people didn't vote reliably based on party, then gerrymandering wouldn't work. But gerrymandering has been around for a long time, so people have been voting based on party for a long time.

The only thing that changed is acerbic found a platform from which to speak.

Comment It's an old story (Score 1) 247

"Accounts of the Soviet labor system should be suppressed even if true, since otherwise the French working class might become anti-Soviet."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre

The old story is, "should we journalists tell the truth even when it harms our own political prejudices?" And sadly, the answer is typically "no". Just like here. If the leaked emails had been damaging to Trump, Democrats everywhere would be cheering the hero Wikileaks again, and toasting with the most expensive Russian vodka they could get their hands on. But that didn't happen. What happened?

The Establishment's chosen candidate (Democrat voters certainly didn't choose her, if you voted in the primaries it was an utter waste of your time) was exposed as the lying sack of shit that she is. Not once have the Democrats denied any of the emails. NOT ONCE. So, naturally, journalists are coming up with all sorts of rationalizations not to publish these, because otherwise the American people might make the wrong choice and choose the candidate who won't put the Establishment's needs first. It's an old story that's been repeated and We The People get fucked every time.

"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
-- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Comment After watching (Score 3, Insightful) 247

After watching people (mostly liberal) defend leaks for nearly a generation, and now see a lot of them switching sides when the leak exposes a person on 'their side'.......they're all a bunch of dirty hypocrites.

Yes, I'm talking about you, dear reader who picks a 'team,' whether R or D. YOU are what is wrong with America. The leaks will keep coming, and you'll see how dirty your side really is.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 218

Not really: mod games as you put it are not a waste of time in that sense. Man readers only read the highly upvoted comments or scan for remarks about that. How things are moderated does influence what people see.

How many are "many readers" again? You're speaking of hypothetical people who read the comments, but are unaware somehow of mod bombing and the other mod games. Needless to say, I think we want our foes to waste their time on this particular readership.

Comment Re:Showmanship (Howard Stern, Lady Gaga) vs sociop (Score 1) 131

While Trump is most assuredly a clown, Hillary is very likely a sociopath, so "the only sane one" would have to go to the clown, Trump.

What color is the sky in a world in which running a visa mill, bragging about having sexually abused many women, raping at least one woman, and Trump's typical deliberate corporate malfeasance are not sociopathic behavior? Does photosynthesis work on your planet?

Comment Re:progressive thinking (Score 2) 52

But heaven forbid people want to build an oil pipeline, something that actually makes roads safer and actually saves energy: then progressives are up in arms and start protesting and rioting, and they are not above using Native Americans as props in their political theater.

Until you start using the most primitive of available technologies to make oil pipelines safe, like double-walled pipes with interstitial leak monitors, you can stick those oil pipelines up your ass.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.