[quote]hedo wrote:
Slight improvement in your boasting though…you didn’t claim to be a former Mr. Universe of even having invented the internet, although I’m sure Al Gore no doubt consulted with you before going public with it…am I right?[/quote]
You really need to read more on that sarcasm thing – it’s supposed to be witty, funny and ORIGINAL you know?
At this point, with Bush’s constant verbal gaffes – anyone who got $1 every time he commited one, would be a millionnaire by now – continuing to insist on a joke based on one completely harmless verbal gaffe Gore made eons ago is beyond desperate – it’s just plain retarded.
Some might say that America (and the West, generally) may come to a self-inflicted death more from “head-in-the-sand” liberalism than from imagined jackboots:
This article has generated quite a buzz, coming from a self-proclaimed liberal author ( http://www.samharris.org/ )
EXCERPT:
[i]But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world ? specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.
This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that “liberals are soft on terrorism.” It is, and they are.[/i]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This article has generated quite a buzz, coming from a self-proclaimed liberal author ( http://www.samharris.org/ )[/quote]
Dude, I get it, lothario gets it, we all get it: liberals are their own worst enemy. We don’t need conservatives to criticize us; we do a pretty good job at doing that to ourselves.
Stop beating a dead horse! Especially because it results from that what you really don’t want to hear – we don’t need conservatives, period. We’re more than capable of sustaining the Democratic process of discussion and argument on our own.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Dude, I get it, lothario gets it, we all get it: liberals are their own worst enemy. We don’t need conservatives to criticize us; we do a pretty good job at doing that to ourselves.
Stop beating a dead horse! Especially because it results from that what you really don’t want to hear – we don’t need conservatives, period. We’re more than capable of sustaining the Democratic process of discussion and argument on our own.
[/quote]
I think this thread has given you a slight erection. It must. I have never seen you jabber so much, and say so little.
“Getting it” isn’t even my issue here. I am sure you lib-elitists are more than capable of kicking your own asses.
I just don’t understand why you have come unhinged here. It’s like watching a steer with encephalitis. You know he’s crazy, but you have to watch him until he falls over - or else you will get hurt.
[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think this thread has given you a slight erection. It must. I have never seen you jabber so much, and say so little.
Errr, as opposed to the conservatives around here, who have lately contributed with lots of novel ideas and thoughts?
Find me a new, previously unexplored, discussion or idea, posted by a conservative, in this forum. Seriously. I’ll bet good money that you can’t.[/quote]
Find me a new, previously unexplored discussion or idea posted by anyone in this forum.
And no - your ranting does not qualify. It has all been discussed before.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
the Patriot Act (fortunately) was never anything like the hype. And I think we can all agree on the basic constitutional picture: the constitutional law “on the books” as it relates to civil liberties is pretty much the same today as it was on September 10, 2001.[/quote]
The Patriot Act, as I understand it, does not curb civil liberties as much as it takes away privacy you once had. Many public records can be consulted without need of a bench warrant. The common example is your library card activities, but nowadays, who still goes to the library? What’s not often mentioned is that business records, financial records and even medical records (not sure about that last one…) can be accessed by the FBI without having to inform you or without requiring a warrant. You’re still free as before, but the govt. can snoop around in your stuff to see what you’re up to.
The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) makes it illegal to try and bypass a software system designed to protect copyrighted content. That’s one right you had previously, that you don’t have anymore. You’re not allowed to reverse engineer software that’s running on your own computer. Of course the DMCA predates the current administration, but is a symptom of the slow erosion of rights and privacy that’s going on. The citizen’s freedoms are being slowly eroded to benefit corporations (DMCA) and governments, especially law enforcement.
[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
Slight improvement in your boasting though…you didn’t claim to be a former Mr. Universe of even having invented the internet, although I’m sure Al Gore no doubt consulted with you before going public with it…am I right?
You really need to read more on that sarcasm thing – it’s supposed to be witty, funny and ORIGINAL you know?
At this point, with Bush’s constant verbal gaffes – anyone who got $1 every time he commited one, would be a millionnaire by now – continuing to insist on a joke based on one completely harmless verbal gaffe Gore made eons ago is beyond desperate – it’s just plain retarded.
[/quote]
Oh come on Hspder you weren’t even a little tempted to claim you invented the internet…be honest.
The retarded moment would be thinking it was directed at Al Gore and missing the sarcasm inflicted upon you. Maybe you are the one in need of some reading sport.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Oh come on Hspder you weren’t even a little tempted to claim you invented the internet…be honest. [/quote]
That would imply I’d have to be really old, and we all know old people aren’t cool.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The retarded moment would be thinking it was directed at Al Gore and missing the sarcasm inflicted upon you. Maybe you are the one in need of some reading sport.[/quote]
Ouch, I’m hurt!
Nice try, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a very, very tired joke.
[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
This article has generated quite a buzz, coming from a self-proclaimed liberal author ( http://www.samharris.org/ )
Dude, I get it, lothario gets it, we all get it: liberals are their own worst enemy. We don’t need conservatives to criticize us; we do a pretty good job at doing that to ourselves.
Stop beating a dead horse! Especially because it results from that what you really don’t want to hear – we don’t need conservatives, period. We’re more than capable of sustaining the Democratic process of discussion and argument on our own.
[/quote]
Hmmm…is this a brilliant lib claiming that libs have no core values? They therefore can’t agree on common principles, except hatred of a good man, GWB? Fascinating!
The part about your dad was cool, but are you intimating that your family was in on inventing the Internet? If they did invent it, please thank them for us.
[quote]hspder wrote:
By the way, I find it very convenient for you to have friends who were “on” the staff of Gore, especially ones that claim he is an elitist douchebag. That doesn’t compute, I’m sorry – even if you have such friends and they indeed worked for him (convenient enough by itself), why would they say something like that about the candidate they supported in 2000’s election?
It would be even more unlikely than me badmouthing Stanford. I mean, if he is indeed a douchebag, the fact that they stayed working for him just means that they’re douchebags also – and most douchebags don’t go around telling their friends “I’m with douchebag”.
Doesn’t compute.
[/quote]
they were government employees detailed to him. Not their choice to work for him.
Consider this…maybe everybody calls him a douchbag, not as a political slander, but as a matter of fact.
If anything is bringing about the death of America, it is the fact that our universities are pumping out morons that are willing to buy into any and all conspiracy theories. As the saying goes, their minds are so open their brains have fallen out.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie, this sentence caught my attention. Do you have any hints that the Canadians with nutsacks are participating?[/quote]
It’s not really a question of nutsacks (cf. Afghanistan), more one of brains. We skipped Vietnam too, remember? Funny how you have trouble winning when we’re not there, eh? : )
And since 2003, there have been various allegations made time and again about some of our troops being inside Iraq for a variety of reasons. It’s difficult to confirm, since the official stance is: we’re not there. Next time I come upon similar news, I’ll let you know.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie, this sentence caught my attention. Do you have any hints that the Canadians with nutsacks are participating?
It’s not really a question of nutsacks (cf. Afghanistan), more one of brains. We skipped Vietnam too, remember? Funny how you have trouble winning when we’re not there, eh? : )
And since 2003, there have been various allegations made time and again about some of our troops being inside Iraq for a variety of reasons. It’s difficult to confirm, since the official stance is: we’re not there. Next time I come upon similar news, I’ll let you know.
[/quote]
Hey, thanks. I feel better. I would wager that the guys on here who have served have respect for the Canadian fighting man.
We had our guys in the Eagle squadron in 1940. It’s nice to know that there are Canadians who believe in Iraq and are doing the same thing.
As far as winning without the Canadians, I like that comment!!!
You guys are like our lucky rabbit’s foot? (joke)
Seriously, the valour of the Canadian fighting man is NOT in question.
I was referring to nutsack (or lack thereof) with your previous leadership.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The part about your dad was cool, but are you intimating that your family was in on inventing the Internet? If they did invent it, please thank them for us.[/quote]
I don’t know if you’re joking, but just so that we are clear, NO, my family (or my father) had nothing to do with the
“invention of the Internet”. He did work at the SRI, and we were there during the time, and he used ARPANET, but he wasn’t part of the development team. He had nothing to do with the later development of TCP/IP either.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I was referring to nutsack (or lack thereof) with your previous leadership.[/quote]
Funnily enough, not joining you in Iraq was one of the very few decisions that Jean Chrétien made with which I agreed. And again, that has nothing to do with nutsacks being in short supply, but with brains being in sufficient working order.
I travel quite a bit overseas and I can tell you. Other countries don’t like our government. Why? Because we still view the majority of the world as a threat, and lie about overthrowing regimes we do not like.
Just look at how we are treated at the U.N.
Nobody wants to listen to the U.S. anymore.
they make fun of Bush. Let me list a few of the countries that do not listen to us anymore. Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela,Iraq?, France and the list goes on. Times are changing. We can’t pick a fight or threaten every country that we don’t agree with.
[quote]Skystud wrote:
I travel quite a bit overseas and I can tell you. Other countries don’t like our government. Why? Because we still view the majority of the world as a threat, and lie about overthrowing regimes we do not like.
Just look at how we are treated at the U.N.
Nobody wants to listen to the U.S. anymore.
they make fun of Bush. Let me list a few of the countries that do not listen to us anymore. Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela,Iraq?, France and the list goes on. Times are changing. We can’t pick a fight or threaten every country that we don’t agree with.[/quote]
People laughed at Reagan. Where’s the USSR?
What kind of junior-highschool girl mentality is this? Foreign policy by popularity contest? Screw that. We CAN pick a fight and threaten every country that we don’t agree with.
