You seem awfully disturbed by our choice for President. :rolleyes: So far, you've managed to attempt subtle racism in about 3 separate threads. Way to go. Displaying those colors an all. Tell us again that you don't care about his color? :rolleyes:
I've heard more said about less.
Hmm... interesting dynamic. Instead of Nader stealing Dem votes, we now have Barr stealing Rep votes. :laugh:
I've heard more said about less.
Is it frustrating that even with all of your efforts to focus on some kind of messiah complex that you just aren't getting any traction with this weak ineffectual tactic of smearing the democratic candidate? You've been working hard. Gotta applaud the effort. From racist comments to silly Matrix references you've worked real hard at this, but he still does well. Must be frustrating. I had been planning on writing in Ron Paul. I'm starting to think from this negative approach that you are taking that Obama might indeed deserve my vote. Thanks Mike. You more than anyone has pushed me in this direction.
I've heard more said about less.
He never said he was opposed to the commandments, only to them being enacted as law and enforced by police departments. Read that line you took the time to quote again. Come on Oak, you are being deliberately dense. Define covet for me if you will. Most males covet that hot blonde that moved in down the block. They don't act on it, but covet they do. Do we arrest them? How do we prove it? He looked longer than he should? You are playing the gotcha game in this one.
I've heard more said about less.
If I understand this correctly her outrage is against the comparison to the holocaust since she's Jewish.
I've heard more said about less.
Rob Graham wrote:
When are we going to stop tolerating nonsense like this and insist that the candidates actually address the problems we face?
This was the point underlying my post. The 400 dollar haircut was supposed to look ridiculous when contrasted with 150,000 on a wardrobe. Really, 400 out of millions is not something that should cause such an issue. Especially when the wardrobe is defensible. I don't have a problem with either expenditure. What I take issue with is people choosing to focus on red herrings instead of the real issues. So, when people choose to focus on Edwards haircut instead of his policies I call it crap. Doesn't matter the reasons. The reasons stated was that he's fighting for common people and the haircut causes a divide and reflects how out of touch he is, but when Palin does the same thing its acceptable, even when she's running a front of fighting for the common people and somehow isn't out of touch with a 150,000 dollar wardrobe. Not common at all. The donation is irrelevant. Both the haircut and the clothes are irrelevant. What's relevant is that both sides are choosing to focus on this crap. I'm sure that if I dig through the archives I'll find the same people who are saying the wardrobe is acceptable, are saying that the haircut wasn't acceptable. That's my point. And this isn't a troll. It was meant to stir discussion on how people focus on this petty meaningless crap when its the other side doing it but turn around and defend their own people when they do it. Double standards.
I've heard more said about less.
I wasn't really seeking an answer, the question was rhetorical. It was to stir discussion, but thanks for the answer. But, to be fair Sarah is also claiming to be a champion of the common person. That's why I think this is so funny. Guess it just smacks of hypocrisy to me.
I've heard more said about less.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'll explain it to you though so you don't lose any sleep over the weekend.
How condescendingly kind of you.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Or why the stock market is tanking in anticipation of curious George getting elected.
Whatever that means. Sounds potentially racist. I'm libertarian by the way. A Ron Paul supporter. Don't make any false assumptions about your target audience.
I've heard more said about less.
I'll start by saying I don't have an opinion on how candidates spend the money that is donated to them. I think its a red herring and a cheap tactic at avoiding real issues. But, I do find this very amusing. There was quite a stir on forums everywhere and in the media regarding John Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut. Now these same people are defending Palin's 150,000 dollar wardrobe. Really? Are you kidding me? If a common fellow makes 10 dollars an hour, then a weeks pay is John's haircut. Compared to 7 1/2 years pay for a wardrobe. Now, why again was it unacceptable for John to pay 400 for a haircut but its acceptable for Palin, or rather the RNC, to pay 150,000 on wardrobe? [edit] removed email notification [/edit]
I've heard more said about less.
modified on Friday, October 24, 2008 7:58 PM
Oh yeah. Did you work in the enterprise in the late 80s early 90s? I saw this swap everywhere and had to actually prove to a guy that it is in fact illegal in C++. Can't assign twice to a variable between two sequence points. Definitely in the enterprise.
I've heard more said about less.
Where in the bible does Jesus say you are not a Christian if you don't agree that Abortion is a sin? Is that the Good News?
Ilíon wrote:
Walking into a church building doesn't make you a Christian any more than walking into a McDonald's makes you a hamburger.
And stating something as fact doesn't make it the truth.
I've heard more said about less.
How about the "Dude, I can do that in one line of supported illegal C" #define swap(x, y) x^= y^= x^=y
I've heard more said about less.
Everything is a pointer *ahem* reference. So your reference is worthless until you invoke new, which the only way to tell that your reference isn't valid is to use null. Else what do you compare it to? Any value will be interpreted as an address. But to keep with the elimination of pointers... ahem... we can't just assign 0. That's a numeric in reference land. So we get null. Sounds more necessary than not.
I've heard more said about less.
I disagree. This is the reason for const. To constrain an implementation. You think its a bad idea because you can't subvert it. Hmmm... while we're at it we might as well eliminate private and protected aspects of classes as well. Get rid of readonly and just let everything be completely open. And watch the bugs fly... Do you have a solid argument against const?
I've heard more said about less.
harold aptroot wrote:
Sure, edit the interface
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: And when its in a third party assembly? Are you proposing to decompile it through reflection, edit, then rebuild it to use just to omit the const? And if its obfuscated?
I've heard more said about less.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote:
But my only concern is that whether people really make a constructive use of their holidays.
Isn't a holiday meant to take a break from constructive things? Give us a break man. Evidently you're saying that productivity should be our new religion? I for one think that our work-so-much-for-productivity-sakes culture is way out of hand. I value leisure much more than work. I work so that I can afford leisure. And the most productive use of my time could be doing nothing at all. To simply be here now and not produce. Please, I beseech you, leave the concept of productivity and constructive use, out of the holiday paradigm. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!! In other words Jack- how dare you say that I have to be productive when taking a break from productivity! :mad:
I've heard more said about less.
Can you remove the code if you have to satisfy an interface definition that contains the const keyword? ;)
I've heard more said about less.
I'm currently writing in Kate which is just a text editor and compile with Make in a Bash shell. At work. On Linux. Debugging? printf. Last year at this time I was in VS2005 with all the intellisense and wizards and Enterprise Application Block and config editors and WCF interface generators and LLBL object modelers and.... there wasn't much coding involved. Heh. I'm fine with the command line. Kinda like when Java 1.0 came out and I was using Multi edit and command line tools. Fun! But to be fair, Kate has good syntax highlighting, but no smart indent. No intellisense.
I've heard more said about less.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But why would a hybrid be any less vulnerable to precisely the same human short comings?
Regulation and the market. There is a push/pull mechanism here. The concept is equilibrium. There should be some tension from both sides such that one doesn't get too far out of hand. There needs to be some regulation that sets bounds within which the market can operate that protects the taxpayer from a situation like we have now. The problem is that when the free market is responsible for services that society depends on then we get into a co-dependent situation where when the market makes bad decisions based on greed like the current mortgage crisis the taxpayers are forced to provide the market with welfare. Which is an oxymoron to the nth degree. If the free market needs welfare its not free. I keep hearing conservatives state that this is necessary considering the alternatives. Sounds like democrats arguing for social services. Stick to your guns man. Let this fall flat on its face. We are a strong people. If we need to start over then so be it. But to argue that we need to bail out these companies from a conservative standpoint is to justify every social program any democrat has ever argued for.
I've heard more said about less.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The entire thing was caused by the government forcing lenders to make loans to people who they otherwise would not have lent to.
Are you saying that banks were forced to make these loans? They HAD TO? By law??? BS. I'm also not talking about blame for how this got to this point. I'm talking about the bailout. The banks did not have to make those loans. They profited from them so they stuck their necks out. They should pay for it. Not taxpayers. That's all I'm saying. Take billions of dollars from the taxpayers and give it to the banks for making bad decisions. Talk about redistributing wealth.
I've heard more said about less.