Slashdot Mirror
WTO Wants USA to Gamble Online
revtom writes "The WTO has ruled that the U.S. must allow online gambling or face trade barriers. My favorite quote from the article (Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va), 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"
Religion is a security blanket for the weak-minded and stupid.
Yes, please, go become a destitute street living alcoholic gambling addict. I so love it when my taxes go up to fund addtional services and welfare costs so that you can feel free to make a total ass of yourself.
The hidden fact missing is that addicts behaviour only effects themselves. I'd agree with you if we could tell the junkies to pack sand when they want medical treatment or put them to death for destroying other peoples lives or property. But we can't. That is the balance we have to live with.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Pot/Kettle black?"
Slashdot is the last place I would expect to see racist language like this. Think before you type.
Hopefully we will...in November!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I love it when ACs stubbornly insist on responding to my posts after intentionally misreading them.
Quick! To the thougt-mobile! The term 'murder' includes a large number of defintions like so many other English words do. Unfortunately for you, you are assuming that you can apply the definition that suits you best independant of the context of the two posts above mine. Now, we're talking about what here? Imposing lawful/unlawful restrictions. So, in the spirit of the original poster, which definition of murder would fit the bill here? The one with lawful restrictions, whether it happens to be the first one in your dictionary or not, since I have TWO dead tree dictionaries here, and BOTH list the definition that requires unlawful killing as the first definition. So, considering the version of murder that makes the most sense whether it's the first or not, which can we conclude: a) "murder", in this context, is a legal term that requires unlawful killing to occur or b) "murder" has whatever other arbitrary definition you want to attach to it so you can go stroke your dick for "outsmarting" me?
And, indeed, it is fallacious because the poster intentionally chose an emotionally charged term that DOES NOT apply to what the original poster was talking about whether he said anything about the children or not. However, if you insist on something more: murder requires victims, he's saying the children are murdered, he's making the children out as victims when, in fact, that is NOT a fact. Try thinking through things a little further before you just arbitrarily try to call bullshit on me.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Let's see, there's the invasion of Iraq (against the wishes of the U.N.)
Yes, the U.N. tried to protect its oil for food skim. The war disrupted that.
Junk science at its worse. A thinly veiled attempt by the "world community" to hobble the economic growth of the U.S.
an ill wind that blows no good
Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence. Or do you think people who kill others should he held for "first degree abortion"?
How dare you? You can call killing a fetus anything you like, but from where I come it's called murder. Abortion is simply the nice term for it when it's an unborn baby.
According to dictionary.com:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Where does it say 'so long as they are a certain age'?
You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence".
I didn't think I reinvented anything... Just because you're cold-hearted towards infants and fetuses, doesn't mean I am.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
If a government is at the very least protecting its citizens, then it has no reason to exist. Why the fuck would you invent an institution which had the purpose of staying out of the way? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
To all the US bashers out there. What other nation in the history of the world managed it's position of power as well as the United States has? ie: Had the power, but didn't have the need to conquer and enslave the remaining world population???
I can't think of one other than the US either.
There is a difference between dying and being killed you know. One is *willingly taking the life of another." I'll leave it to you to decide which is which... This is so fucking off topic now... Killing fetuses is such a hot topic...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Why are you, in your sig, linking to a thread where I proved my point regarding both moslem registration, and the fact that you haven't separated from the church all that much .. ? You look like an idiot there.
:)
Suits me fine though
Regarding the parent to your post, he seems to think we're talking about invading forces. He needs to read up on the Quran, and see what has happened to France in that area.
Clueless, as usual.
it's in my head