| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Comments:
<0> But TISATAFHC
<1> from the Army? Did I decode that right?
<0> nope
<0> TPWIIFOWTMFVLI
<1> Buddy of mine used to joke "I got my haircut from the Army because it was cheaper"
<1> TTIITTITTINITTINTTININTTI
<2> tax-- # taxes = theft
<3> I'd be happier about taxes if I liked the government.
<3> it annoys me that the Democratic party is so boneheadedly incompetent.
<3> and that third parties can't win anything.
<3> (in the US)
<0> it's amazing that you continue to think your parties are different
<3> they are different in some respects; identical in others.
<4> I can't blame the national Democratic party for being unable to get stuff done when the Republicans are so ruthlessly dishonest/despicable
<1> integral: they are. They have entirely different ways of being corrupt and stupid :)
<3> the Republican party is a lot better organized, for example. :-P
<3> bpalmer: why not?
<3> bpalmer: I blame the Democrats for not bothering to try to get stuff done.
<4> because cooperative government (e.g., the legislature) only works if both sides are willing to cooperate
<4> if one side is willing to go to extreme lengths to shut the other one down, what can be done?
<3> bring the matter to the attention of the public, for one thing...
<0> the public? hehe.
<3> if you're trying to do something the majority of the voting public actually support, and your opponents are shutting you down...
<4> The media is ... uncooperative, to say the least. Things like bills getting completly rewritten in conference committee... you can only bring to the public's attention how uncooperative that is by first explaining what a conference committee is, the history of how it works in the legislature, and what the Republicans have done
<2> the government needs to be way smaller. then there would be less of them to **** things up
<1> integral: the pubic!
<4> the media will never try to explain it themselves (it's not nearly as interesting as a 20 year old land deal involving the Clintons); the Republicans will never let the Democrats actually explain before throwing a Coulter in there to toss muck
<4> and the Republicans' almost-lockstep national machinery keeps the branches of government in rough harmony so there's no official channels to expose the issues
<3> you know what I'd like to see? A Democratic presidential candidate who's an evangelical Christian, pro-life, anti-gay-marriage (but also anti-banning-gay-marriage, like Kerry) who can clearly state his position on issues.
<2> at least the republicans recognize that worrying about gay marriage is more important than the war, the deficit, etc.
<5> there should be an office of what the court jester was. s/he can point out "the emperor has no clothes!" without fear of reprimand for speaking out, and *not* be paid by the gov't s/he works for.
<6> heh
<4> why should evangelical christians have all the power in the country, phroggy? Evangelical sects are a minority even amongst christians
<6> s/evangelical//
<5> my cousins the lakota have what they call heyoka. which have that and other roles, including spritual tasks
<6> jesus was a messed up 'shroom eating hippy. get over it.
<4> simonrvn: once upon a time, newspapers seemed to serve that role
<7> phroggy: as soon as it becomes profitable for that candidate to exist, you'll see him.
<3> jpeg: it would be very profitable!
<3> well...
<3> he'd win, anyway...
<3> I ***ume that leads to profit?
<3> perhaps I'm misunderstanding the game.
<3> profit for whom?
<4> at any rate, the media has a great deal to do with whether people think a candidate is clearly stating his position on issues
<3> sure
<4> Kerry liked long sentences. But Bush actually refuses to state his position on abortion
<3> Fox is gonna make the Democratic candidate look like a wishy-washy idiot if at all possible
<7> naturally, that's why the media and the candidates gravitate towards emotional issues that can be settled in a sound byte
<5> bpalmer: once upon a time...
<3> I don't think Bush is actually anti-abortion, but if he said that, he'd have serious problems with his supporters.
<4> (if you read the press conferences, it's amusing to see the press secretary manage to avoid answering questions. "We answered that yesterday." "What was the answer?" "You can go bck and refer to the transcripts." "There was no answer yesterday." "We have nothing more to add than what we said yesterday")
<3> haha
<3> nice
<1> bpalmer: That's because of what happens when they actually _do_ say something
<6> perlbot: .ee
<8> .ee is Estonia
<4> hobbs: the reporters actually have something to report?
<5> *dodge* *hedge* "talk a lot without saying anything"
<1> bpalmer: "As I've said, yadda yadda yadda, and we stand by that position" and meanwhile they said exactly the opposite of yadda yadda yadda last month :)
<1> bpalmer: but if you bring _that_ one up the answer is "uh, um, uh... we stand by that position!"
<9> hobbs: what, exactly is the opposide of yadda yadda yadda?
<5> adday adday adday
<1> f00li5h: nqqnl nqqnl nqqnl
<5> hehe
<9> hobbs: ya got me there
<3> here's my thought: if we had a Christian pro-life Democrat running, who would the pro-choice atheists vote for? Do you really think they're gonna vote for a Republican? I doubt it. Meanwhile, the hardcore pro-lifers might vote based on other issues besides that.
<3> if both candidates take the same position on controversial issues, it removes the controversy from the election process.
<1> ... "three cent titanium tax" etc.
<1> but that gets us Richard Nixon :P
<3> I'd like to see abortion and gay marriage removed from the election process, and more focus on things like warrantless wiretaps.
<10> There are pro-life democrats that'd dare run in a place where pro-life / pro-choice is an issue?
<3> ew73: if their opponents are pro-life too, why not?
<3> if you're pro-choice and the Deomcrat is pro-life, but the Republican is also pro-life, who are you gonna vote for?
<1> Kodos
<10> Qang.
<4> ew73: yes, actually.
<3> 1) vote for a third party, 2) don't vote at all, 3) vote based on other issues besides abortion
<6> duh.
<1> kill -ABRT -1
<11> I have a var that contains a regex without the /../ part I want to basicly do /.../i so its case insensitive how can I do that? so $foo =~ /$regex/i but where $regex is inserted into the regex?
<10> Personally, I tend to vote democratic almost neurotically, but that's more of a toe-the-party-line mentality than voting based on issues.
<1> (Abortions for some, miniature American flags for init!)
<6> okay, so perlmonks.org is okay ? I can't seem to get it at $work,.
<4> phroggy: evidence suggests that one party typically is trusted more on particular issues. For those who are pro-life, they're going to be "vulnerable" to ads attacking the "anti-pro-life" candidate as lying/being beholden to "special interests" so on
<6> weird, works from $home.
<1> BinGOs: slow but okay
<3> bpalmer: so what happens when both candidates are pro-life?
<1> bpalmer: beholden. There's a word that's never used outside of very limited contexts. And one which very few people can spell or use properly :)
<4> row: (?i:...)
<1> phroggy: the one that belongs to the party which is "naturally" pro-life wins because he's seen as more credible
<3> I suppose people just ignore the candidate entirely, and ***ume the Democrat to be lying...
<11> bpalmer: the regex is stored in a var, you saying '(?i:'.$regex.')' ?
<6> oh working now. Must be the first thing in the morning proxy server lag caused by everyone switching on their computers and the first thing they do is check all their news websites.
<3> right...
<3> hmm.
<4> row: yes
<11> bpalmer: cheers
<3> it would be interesting to see what would happen, anyway.
<3> you're right though - that's what happened with Kerry and gay marriage.
<10> It's not even that complicated, really.
<4> phroggy: it's happened on a number of issues. For example, Kerry was opposed to gay marriage, as was Bush. Guess which one the anti-gay marriage voters broke for?
<3> one of the reasons people voted against Kerry was because they were afraid he'd legalize gay marriage, even though Kerry explicitly said otherwise.
<3> right.
<3> '04 was pretty close though... Kerry would have won if anyone actually liked him.
<6> Hey, we have gay marriage in UK. It's great. Luddite Americans.
<12> perlbot: perl web framework
<8> CGI-Application, CGI-Application-Plus, CGI-Builder, CGI-Prototype, Jifty, Catalyst, Gantry, AxKit
<13> someone mentioned Catalyst to me today
<4> phroggy: *shrug* Well, Kerry wasn't a tremendous speaker, and had some issues. But I still consider the tremendous bias in presentation by supposedly objective sources in 2000 and 2004 bigger factors
<12> perlbot: relearn perl web framework as CGI-Application, CGI-Application-Plus, CGI-Builder, CGI-Prototype, Jifty, Maypole, Catalyst, Mojo, Gantry, AxKit, WebGUI
<8> relearned entry for perl web framework
<4> and I went around registering people to vote in 2004; you run into an awful lot of uninformed voters that way. What candidates say is completely unimportant; it's what is said about them
<3> yeah..
<3> I suppose you're right.
<3> so...
<3> what can be done about that?
<4> (E.g., "What political party do you want to register as, if any?" "I don't know, Bush is president, right? What party is he? I guess I'll be Republican then, because I support our president.")
<3> lol
<3> right.
<6> (voter apathy)--
<1> better to register as an independent than on the Blind Faith Party ;)
<10> bpalmer: That's part of the reason I love Oregon so much. The voters here are mind-blowingly smart.
<3> hell yeah, Oregon kicks ***.
<13> Oregon, meth capital of the United Sates
<3> ok, that part doesn't kick ***.
<3> but voting in Oregon kicks ***.
<13> they should just legalize pot and meth and cocaine for chrissake
<3> (vote by mail)++
<13> and regulate the hell out of it
<13> and tax the hell out of it
<13> and let people get their jollies
<9> how can you regulate pot?
<9> you just need a seed and you're away
<13> make it legal and tax it like tobacco
<13> people don't plant their own tobacco plants
<3> start by legalizing medical marijuana. If a qualified and licensed doctor says you need it, you should be able to go down to Walgreen's and have your prescription filled.
<10> Teratogen: You know, it's not. Meth usage in Oregon is no higher (on average) than most other major cities.
<9> Teratogen: that's just cause they need more specific conditions
<13> smoke is an efficient drug delivery system but it's a stupid one
<3> (yes, it's already "legal" here, but not THAT legal)
<9> they call pot `weed' for a reason
<13> I would rather see thc pills legalized
<10> The Oregonian just went bat**** crazy quoting a faulty study.
<13> and next to the aspirin
<13> well there are thc pills but they are prescription
<13> =)
<13> they should be otc
<9> Teratogen: hrm, headache releif or reality releif
<13> yep
Return to
#perl
or
Go to some related
logs:
sbin/depscan.sh
linux.dell.com up2date 404
#php
soundtracker unexpected identifier
onion-layering
ubuntu cups username/passwd
rpmcpio rhel
#math
TC35143AF
debian add curl
|
|