>> ^quantumushroom:

Palin is thin-skinned? She's been media-assassinated by cowards from the moment McLame anounced her as running mate.
She should run; can't do any worse than the kenyan kenyanesque hawaiian.


She wasn't assassinated by the media; she was assassinated by McCain and he was smart to do it. They realized pretty quickly that she was a moron as did everyone else, including most of the Republican party. She doesn't have the fortitude to deal with opposition or challenges. She had a months-long breakdown over being asked what she reads. At the end of it all she wasn't even smart enough to be embarrassed and disappear.

Now she's surrounded herself with a team of yes-men and she's traveling the country rallying the rest of the morons. Why hasn't she thrown her hat into the race? Because she's afraid to face the criticism. She's afraid to have to answer questions from people who aren't her friends. She wants to live in her bubble-world for as long as possible. If she does throw in, it will be at the last possible minute to avoid as many debates and interviews as possible.

despite the relatively high density of evil scumbags who populate it, dallas has a really really beautiful skyline. also, if karl were actually standing where the backdrop makes it appear that he is standing, he'd've (texan for "he would have") been standing on top of a pretty depressed ghetto, parts of which totally resemble a 3rd world country.


also, many years ago i took a texas government class at a community college. most of the videos we had to watch stared a young karl rove lecturing, of all things, on ethics....... bwwahahahahhahaha.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Oh god, I agree with Karl Rove. I feel sick


Quick, induce vomiting before it gets into your system!

Oh god, I agree with Karl Rove. I feel sick

Three words for you ---

Terrorist Fist Jab.

Don't be silly, qm. This is how it is. You have to have a thick skin. It is ugly out there. She got upset because Rove made a SPECULATION that she might be running.

She is a train wreck. I know someone who knew her in high school, and she says she was mean, mean, mean even then.

Give it up. The truth is just coming to light.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Palin is thin-skinned? She's been media-assassinated by cowards from the moment McLame anounced her as running mate.
She should run; can't do any worse than the kenyan kenyanesque hawaiian.

>> ^quantumushroom:
War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.


Violence begets violence right? Ever heard of blow-back? If war is our solution, then how are we any different than the enemies you're talking about.

You may know the true cost of war, but war =/= freedom. A thousand military bases around the world, a million civilian deaths, drones leveling buildings with a 90% civilian death rate, military check points for lawful citizens, house to house searches for resistance fighters--none of this protects freedom.

War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.

The only way to protect freedom is to fight those that encroach on the natural rights of individuals.

Such as jihadist a$$hole$.

War works.

Okay, I read all SEVENTEEN PAGES of the court's ruling. Luckily, the margins were wide.

Here are some fun bits I found -- including the first, which was a footnote at the very beginning:

1. For his part, Mr. Jefferson is on record discouraging celebration of
his birthday. “On Mr. Jefferson’s accession to the Presidency
[visitors] had waited on him, requesting to be informed, which was
his birthday, as they wished to celebrate it with proper respect. ‘The
only birthday I ever commemorate,’ replied he, ‘is that of our
Independence, the Fourth of July.’”


2. Having thus created and maintained the Memorial as a commemorative site, the government is under no obligation to open it up as a stage for the roving dance troupes of the world — even those
celebrating Mr. Jefferson.


3. We have noted previously that the Park Service has a
substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our
national memorials. See Henderson, 964 F.2d at 1184 (“Th[e]
interest in maintaining a tranquil mood at the [Vietnam]
Memorial wall is similar to ones that the Supreme Court and
this court have recognized as substantial.”). Here the
government has reasonably advanced its interest in tranquility
because, unlike in Henderson, the restriction on expressive
activity does not sweep beyond the actual Memorial space.
Outside the Jefferson Memorial, of course, Oberwetter and
her friends have always been free to dance to their hearts’
content.

I just thought I'd point out that I've ran my main computer (of course I'm a hardware geek, so I know my stuff--no conflicts is another way to put it) for 4 years on Vista SP2 64-Bit WITHOUT ONE CRASH (this is a: on for 24/7 as it acts as a media server and Windows Media Center Extender-provider)! Now I'm on Win 7 64-Bit and same deal, nothing, no problems, no crashes, and I have my fair share of peripherals plugged in.

People need to realize that somewhere towards the end of Vista and into Windows 7 Microsoft has taken their crappy old software and made it work extremely well, considering what it has to do. It has drivers for virtually everything and if your a scientist, engineer, or something similar you're using Windows for this very reason: Windows will recognize your device and allow you to write a driver to let you do whatever you need it to do; easily!

People are afraid to switch out Windows XP. They're expecting to go through all the hassle only to get the same crap. But, Windows 7 is definitely a new breed of design for Microsoft. You can tell the old guys must have been canned or given an epiphany inducing lashing by Bill: Bill was retired from production for a long time, but when Vista came out, it literally pissed him off (as he was trying to use it himself) and there was a big bust-up/fight internally; so in a way I'm glad Vista started out as a complete and utter piece of crap that performed as well as a brick in a GrandPrix race. It led to Windows 7 and the service packs that made Vista very usable.

Again, back to why Windows IS successful even when it was crashing... You can right your own driver AND IT WORKS. Now days it works great, and the development software is pretty straight forward and is fairly good. That is the one thing he should point out in the video is the extremes Microsoft went to (and still does), to get an OS that would do everything. Yeah, it crashed and was buggy, but realistically you won't be running your new hardware on a MacOS. People with MacOS's (in the past especially) are one trick pony users. They do music or they do art. They don't need a virtual driver that supports incoming data from a USB blender/centrifuge that will let you write a program using the driver to tamper with the spin and modulation rate of the device while getting real-time data updates. Hell, the roving "Doppler on Wheels" uses Windows for this very reason.

Microsoft takes a lot of flak, but they filled their role very well and I was never surprised that it was buggy (however, I'll totally agree that the initial version of Vista was a complete an utter joke--like I said I didn't get it till they had their second service pack and had great user feedback; especially, since I went 64-bit).

Windows 7 though IS the OS to use or some sort of Linux distribution. But, with the great support built in, right off the bat (this time) and the easy to make drivers for developers and hardware vendors, it's getting hard to find a reason to not use it other than: "I hate Windows and/or Bill Gates".

Thought I'd write this bit if people didn't know the story or reasons why the latest Windows have changed direction so drastically.

Well I can see you started without me again. Well that's it, friendo; I'm not sharing my Thunderbird with you anymore.
In reply to this comment by Gallowflak:
DOn't have tp rove anything to you! BlAGGARD

(21. It helps me compose! Honest!)

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You mean you need an excuse? You must be young.
In reply to this comment by Gallowflak:
Yaaaaay! I thought I wouldn't have an excuse to indulge my alcoholism today.

DOn't have tp rove anything to you! BlAGGARD

(21. It helps me compose! Honest!)

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You mean you need an excuse? You must be young.
In reply to this comment by Gallowflak:
Yaaaaay! I thought I wouldn't have an excuse to indulge my alcoholism today.

/facepalm
Goddamnit roving band of Egyptian rapists!

You're fuckin' up the revolution for every body.. -_-

Yea, fixed!


(BTW, I liked the SNL performance just for the typical responses you see on Fox. Although, I did think Carl Rove's part could have used my outright lies set as truth--a lie that confuses and startles the Fox people till someone hits the camera again. Shep is what wins me over for this.)

(Jon's Glenn Beck was better as it had time and they developed it. I really think SNL could hold their own doing the same just cause Glenn is so shallow and ripe for the pickings.)

How is it that people cannot defend themselves right now? We can still purchase a wide variety of weapons, including firearms. Do you need an RPG to protect your apartment?

I'm trying real hard to understand your moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. You seem to be claiming that it is immoral for the government (representatives of the collective public) to throw a person in prison for breaking the law. Tell me if I'm wrong, because I don't know how else to interpret that weird "stabbing you with a knife to quit smoking" example.

Incentivize people using fear and violence? What does that even mean? Fear is a good thing. Fear of consequences. Whether there is a government around or not, there will be consequences for actions. Either from a neutral party (like police and the courts) or from vigilantes (the family and friends of the victim). From my point of view, there's more violence in your proposed world.

Your entire argument is beginning to sound like "I can't smoke what I want where I want so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!" and "I can't buy a guy without a three day waiting period so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!"

You have no clue what would even happen if you got your way, and you act like we are crazy for defending a system that at least functions a little bit. We're not crazy, we have a pretty good idea how fucked up the world gets when there is no functioning government. It's like those African countries where they don't have any roads but they've all got AK-47's. Where entire villages get wiped out by roving mercenary gangs. Where hundred or thousands of women get raped and nobody does a damn thing about it. I don't want to live there, and I don't think you do either. It's fucking hell on earth, and you think everybody is suddenly going to start being nice to each other? Because there is no government to "incentivize violence"?

I'm trying real hard not to start throwing insults, so please tell me why you think I am wrong. Aside from allowing you to buy more weed and guns, how would a lack of government be better?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^MaxWilder:
I think we're stuck on the word "prevent". Nothing can prevent crime, only discourage it and punish people who are caught committing crimes.
So the real question is: would your system do a better job discouraging people from harming one another? And when someone inevitably does, what happens when they are caught?
Currently, we have courts and police to discourage crime and attempt to punish those who commit crimes.
I see no alternative, other than vigilante justice, which in my humble opinion would suck balls. Please explain how it would be better!

Yes, "prevent" was the word dystopianfuturetoday scrawled above as some sort of ham-fisted challenge as if there's any proof the current system prevented anything. No law (no matter the number or the severity of the draconian punishment) will prevent a crime. If it did, then today we'd have no murder, no rape, theft, etc.
Would a voluntary society discourage crime? Maybe. Who knows. If you mean discouraging the more egregious crimes like murder and rape and theft, I feel confident it would help to allow people the right to self defense by allowing them to arm themselves if they chose to do so. I can guarantee a voluntary society would not have that horrible '3 strikes' rule we have here in California where receiving the third felony nets you a mandatory life sentence. Has it been successful in preventing or discouraging crime? I don't know, but people are still committing felonies.
The real difference is in having a moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. For instance, if you wanted to stop smoking I could come to your house and threaten you with a butcher knife. If I find you smoking then I stab you. Would that prevent you from smoking? Would that discourage you from smoking? And would that be moral even if I did in fact effectively stopped you from smoking?
Voluntary societies would morally deal with drug addicts, jaywalkers, etc. As long as people are not hurting others, then they won't be harmed. That's the motto. We don't want to incentivize people using fear and violence. We want to do it voluntarily.

Wow, if it came down to Palin vs Rove, I'm not sure who I find more distasteful. One is ignorance personified, the other is evil personified.