Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. WiFi Brazil Smart Plug Socket
in order to use the republicans as an excuse to do nothing
in order to use the republicans as an excuse to do nothing
Oh no, it's retarded. The republicans' agenda is (and has been for nigh a decade) to stifle and impede every single thing the democrats try to do under the drooling moron missive of "owning the libs", and you have the empty head to say the dems are doing nothing? Careful, basement-dwelling edgelord. Don't trip on your way up for some hot pockets mommy nuked for you. You might get some in your neckbeard or on your My Little Pony shirt.
when she was nominated the House, Senate, President, were all Democrat controlled. The fact seating here was still an issue is telling to me.
Make no mistake .. Republicans suck, no question about that. It's not even a debatable thing at this point. The last good Republican was John McCain, RIP. Anyway, Republicans suck especially on things like net neutrality, wherein they said that ISPs should be allowed to decide what websites you can and cannot access. That was before they realized corporations could actually act against Republican nuts. That was before they perceived themselves as censored. However, we can't let the pendulum swing the other
Both sides suck depending on the issue, but yes most republicans were on the wrong side of the net neutrality debate. I suspect that mostly boils down to many of them skewing older and just not understanding technology, so they do the kneejerk "regulation = bad" reaction.
This is why to some degree bureaucratic agencies can work better than elected officials on certain things. Its better than the FAA be ran by people who are hired for aviation knowledge than elected based on popularity (ie, in many places you have sheriff's who are sometimes elected with no law enforcement background or coroners who are elected with no medical background).
By the same token though that idea of rules made by appointees rather than elected officials is very, very anti-democratic.
At the end of the day, fair government is just a hard problem.
Republicans say a lot about the "free market" and competition but certainly do try and stop any attempts. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
(ie, in many places you have sheriff's who are sometimes elected with no law enforcement background or coroners who are elected with no medical background).
Some places even have JUDGES elected who have no legal background or training. Yes, the person who's deciding your fate may never have been an attorney and had to face real judges before becoming one themselves.
Literally the Pee Wee Herman defense. I know you are, but what am I
I find that the people that support Republicans are often the ones to push "both sides are the same" in attempt to justify their position. Sure the Republicans are against Net Neutrality and tried to violently overthrow the government, but remember that time Obama wore a tan suit!?
To be perfectly clear, I do not support or endorse either Democrats or Republicans
TL:DR: BOTH. SIDES. SUCK.
Yes, this is the sort of comment you see from someone that leans strong to the right.
It's either someone that really prefers the abhorrent views of the right and doesn't want to feel guilty about letting them be elected into office, or someone that's just so disconnected from politics that they don't understand the polices of either side other than a few short clips they might have seen on the news.
how the fuck does this absolute flamebait troll get modded +4 insightful? jesus christ this place has fallen.
Because not everybody here believes it was trolling or flamebait? Just saying...
Only if you really believe that all Republicans suck.
Only if you really believe that all Republicans suck.
If they don't want people to believe this, they should stop sucking. If you name a single non-suck thing republicans have done in the last 6 years, I'll be happy to tell you in detail why it's bullshit and hurts the country and its people.
there are honest Republican politicians who legitimately want what's best for the country
there are honest Republican politicians who legitimately want what's best for the country
That's a thing that doesn't exist now. Maybe it did when McCain was alive, but nobody right now has a proper plan or agenda that doesn't consist of "Libs bad, stop them". Half of the republicans are in "Act like chimpanzee and throw feces" mode. The rest are just biding
Your brain-dead challenge forces me to do what I hate having to do: cite the Bad Orange Man (and then get accused of being a Trump fanatic) as the example of something... but since YOU framed the anti-Republican ranting and raving with a 6-year limit on non-sucky things, this is on YOUR terms.
Within the last 6 years, a Republican President named Trump:
1. presided over low interest rates
2. presided over low inflation rates
3. presided over low energy prices and energy independence for the USA
You forgot to add, pandered to rocket boy of North Korea. Got bamboozled by a virus. Got bamboozled by his own staff. Destabilized and sold out the economy for short term fake prosperity. Set race relations back by 50 years. Increased homicide rates. Put humans in cages. Reinstated torture culture. Gaslighted 49% of the population into distrust of various institutions. Instigated disastrous withdrawal of Afghanistan then handed over mess to Biden. Gave Putin free reign, not to mention the best blow job a ma
> Personally, If I have to choose between parties, I will choose the one that opposed slavery, opposed segregation, and currently supports individual rights and free speech (the GOP) over the party that owned the slaves, wrote and enforced every single damnable Jim Crow law, founded the KKK, craves total government control over everything and everybody, finds the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties" that is obsolete, and demands the right to take anything you have and prevent you from saying wh
what is there to call false? A half dozen sentences about Republican suckitude, then an utterly-unsubstantiated blanket 'but Dems do too'. It's empty. NOT A BIT OF SUBSTANCE BEHIND IT. WTactualF? Then, this epitome of ludicrosity burps out 'so maybe deadlock (which includes NOT DOING A FUCKING THING ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY) is a good thing.
Srsly, stupidest comment of the day, and you're defending it without substance, too. "Was it false?" Hell, what's that matter -- let's try: could either of you state
Methinks your bubble is running out of oxygen. Maybe you should step out of it for a while?
Embarrassingly dumb. You made a case against republicans, then stated without any backing that the Dems are just as bad, then leapt over to 'so maybe (love that milquetoast word) deadlock is good'.
Fuck, no. Deadlock on Net Neutrality and a dozen other comm-related sellout positions of existing FCC chairs isn't good. And my socks are better at rhetoric. Be ashamed.
On the other hand: where are you going to find the money to have your ideas written into law? (Selling newsletters? Might not get your finances all the way there...)
Senate is still a (minor) majority for democrats. So why blame the republicans if they can't get her approved?
Is it because the public won't act because she can't get democrats to approve her, so they have to blame republicans?
The Democrats have a sort-of majority in the Senate. They're too ideologically diverse and too undisciplined to be able to make use of their majority, because there's always a Democrat that feels the need to establish how "independent" they are.
My understanding also is that this would need more than a majority, it'd need a rule change to prevent some of the techniques Republicans are using to block their nominee. Senate Democrats are historically skittish about any rule changes. So even the nominee's sup
No, because nothing that happened after they changed the rules for judges wouldn't have happened anyway.
As I said, they've always been skittish about this. For some stupid reason they think that if they don't change the rules, the Republicans won't. but the Republicans do and even introduce new rules and then remove them without discussion. And they seem to ignore the fact the filibuster, the biggest rule they refuse to remove, is actually a bigger impediment to the Democrats agenda than the Republican's
"Opposition to the nomination of Sohn, a longtime advocate for net neutrality, has come from a number of quarters, including the Directors Guild of America. The group urged senators to vote down Sohn's nomination due to her 'hostility towards copyright law.' Sohn was previously on the board of Locast, a defunct service that rebroadcast over-the-air TV broadcast signals via the internet. She said she'd recuse herself from issues concerning retransmission consent and broadcast copyright.
In confirmation hearings, Republicans portrayed Sohn as an extreme partisan. She hit back at those assertions, arguing that she had been subject to "unrelenting, unfair and outright false criticism and scrutiny."
Source: https://www.engadget.com/senat... [engadget.com]
Well anyone in the press has to both-sides the shit out of anything to appear "impartial".
Meanwhile she was criticized for her hostility to copyright ?
Not really clear that would qualify as opposition from Blue.
I for one am hostile to copyright too so I'm all for her being nominated.
Just like you wouldn't want to see a bible-thumping extremist religious nut holding this job, I don't want to see an extremist leftist with a hard-on for censoring anything they don't agree with in this job.
Me neither, but what does that have to do with anything in reality? You know this is America right? There are virtually no "leftists" in government in any form, let alone any that believe in "censoring anything they don't agree with".
The only people who have repeatedly demonstrated they believe they're in favor of censorship of views they disagree with who have power right now are conservative Republicans. Hence the empty bookshelves in Florida, the attempts to prevent history being taught to kids, the attempts to get rid of Section 230 so that websites that publish "ungood" stuff can either be spammed out of existence or sued into oblivion, the take over of Twitter and banning of people who investigate fascists, who criticize Elon Musk, etc.
There is no similar movement on the left, no matter how much the right tries to convince itself otherwise, and even if there was, it doesn't have any power.
Ronald Reagan is a leftist when you compare him to the modern day party.
Ronald Reagan is a leftist when you compare him to the modern day party.
Ronald Reagan was actually conservative for his time in many ways. The modern day Republican party is anything but conservative.
And the results prove my point. The post you responded to? Modded to nothing. You? Modded to 5. My response to you? Quickly zero'd. It was done strictly as a form of censorship to control information on there. Well done army of the left, well done. You guys literally have people sitting at home and all they do is promote left idealology and try to shut down anything else.
Literally marked as a troll because disagreeing with anything on the left is troll hate max hitler times 1000. Exteme leftists are the wors
I don't want to see an extremist leftist with a hard-on for censoring anything they don't agree with in this job.
I don't want to see an extremist leftist with a hard-on for censoring anything they don't agree with in this job.
I'm curious if you've seen this article yet: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] Care to take a guess, without reading the article whether it's an "R" or a "D" involved?
Just like you wouldn't want to see a bible-thumping extremist religious nut holding this job, I don't want to see an extremist leftist with a hard-on for censoring anything they don't agree with in this job. If that makes me partisan, fuck you. If that makes me an extremist, fuck you again.
That doesn't make you either of those things. If that's what you think of the nominee, it makes you someone who fell for a strawman fallacy.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/… [www.cbc.ca]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
https://time.com/5875182/tata-... [time.com]
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09... [npr.org]
Name the political opponents, and critics that Trump threw into prison.
Trump was probably the most-criticized President of my lifetime, and I remember Nixon and Watergate... so it's odd that you seem to think Trump was some sort of fascist who jailed people who criticized him. Certainly none of Trump's critics were ever actually afraid that he would jail them - their behavior proves this.
This is in stark contrast to the relationships between Obama and his critics, or Biden and his critics.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Arkansas Proposes Requiring ID To Watch Porn Online
Switching Power Adapter Microsoft Ditches Yammer Brand and Goes All-in on Viva Engage