I believe Jesse Jackson is, at heart, a good man. However, many of his actions are divisive and destructive to our culture. Jackson accuses anyone and everyone of racism, from Bill Clinton (true!) to GWB and everybody in between. He is a laughingstock because he has destroyed his own credibility by endlessly dishing out baseless accusations over the years. The more he rants, the more people hate him -- it's a self-fulfilling prophecy and is a recipe for instant racists.
I'll show George W. Bush that he's not the only one who can rig an election.
If Bush rigged the election, then why did he almost lose? Looks like he did a terrible job of it. Well, of course he didn't rig it. Just compare the character of Bush to the character of Gore.
Now you know how gun rights supporters feel. CPRM reminds me of the government's push for trigger locks on guns. Gun owners embarked on huge firearm buying sprees and the NRA's membership went through the roof.
In the name of protection, legal products are again being crippled with invasive and cumbersome "features". This is an intrusion of property rights, because it prevents you from controlling what you have paid for and own. The right to private property is fundamental to capitalism and democracy.
The 14th Amendment prevents states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property." Why should businesses be allowed to inflict this deprivation of rights?
With the economy slipping into a recession for which Bush will take the blame, a nice little war makes perfect sense.
Starting wars for political purposes? That's Clinton (à la Kosovo), not Bush. Clinton bombed a couple of African countries to distract the media and the public from his scandals. The Clinton administration dropped bombs on more countries than any other administration in U.S. history. And there wasn't even a war! Thank God the era of Clinton-Gore will soon be over (except for another six scandalous years for masochistic New Yorkers).
Starting a war "makes perfect sense" to amoral people (i.e. most liberals), but not to people with a conscience. Bush possesses principles, which impose limitations on the courses of action he will consider.
Bush's plan to avert a recession is to return to us the money that was OVER-taxed. The government has plundered the nation's wealth with confiscatory taxes, and Bush, in Robin Hood fashion, will give it back to the people who produced it and rightfully own it.
Aim for knowledge that won't become obsolete, and will create a firm foundation for whatever comes.
I'll second that. Taking your suggestion to a broader level, it's very important for young people to establish a firm foundation that will enable them to apply their knowledge in a responsible and ethical manner. Think: white hat hackers vs. black hat hackers, or Allies vs. Axis Powers (Nazis).
The ethics issue is especially important in this age of nanotech, biotech, cloning, spying technology, and advanced warfare. What kind of perspective toward people do you want to be possessed by the future leaders of [Big Brother] governments and [evil, greedy] mega-corporations?
Fill in the blank: All humans are _________.
a) accidents
b) monkey mutants
c) sacred creations of God
d) figments of your imagination
e) CowboyNeal
How one answers this question is far more crucial than which branch of science one studies. Having realized this, I can't suggest a better study material than the Bible.
Lest you dissent from my opinion (a little Ginsberg lingo:-), check out the Skeptics Center.
Oops, I meant to say ODSs (ozone depleting substances) that do occur naturally. Keep in mind that CFCs are only one of the many kinds of ODSs.
Also, I meant to point out that I am not denying that man-made products harm the ozone layer. I am making the case that any negative effects of human activity pales in comparison to those of the earth's own activity and, therefore, is insignificant.
You're right, it's not really hole, although it appeared that way in the first "color-enhanced" (doctored?) photos of it in the 1970s.
But this will give more ammo to people like Rush Limbaugh who think that humans can't actually damage significant portions of the ozone layer anyway and that it's all volcanoes' fault.
Volcanoes do release a lot of ozone-depleting substances into the atmosphere. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo directly caused significant ozone depletion. You can argue all you want that "natural" CFCs are water soluable, but look at what happened! Volcanic clouds were observed to have depleted ozone. This is documented fact.
I can't believe everybody here is buying into this Darwinism philosophy. What ever happened to critical thinking? This whole thread is based on absurd premises, yet no one is even questioning the veracity of biological macroevolution (evolution from one species to another).
Firstly, the implicit foundation of evolution is spontaneous generation, which was disproven by Louis Pasteur in the 1880s and has been disproven by many scientists since. Secondly, evolutionism violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thirdly, there are zero fossils of transitional (between species) organisms.
The Piltdown Man was a hoax played by a student on his professor. (Of course, the Darwinist faction of scientists were convinced of its authenticity and erroneously announced to the world that it was real. They were all putty in the prankster's hands.) All the other sub-human "species" are concoctions assembled by eager Darwinist disciples ready to believe anything that fits the evolutionist template. These zealots find a couple of teeth here, an ape jawbone there, and claim to have discovered a whole damn species! They are forcing together a few pieces from similar jigsaw puzzles and: 1) declaring that they belong to the same puzzle, and then 2) extrapolating the remaining 99% of the puzzle based on preconceived beliefs about what it's supposed to look like.
Evolutionism has NO foundation whatsoever. Technically speaking, evolution does not even qualify to be considered a "scientific theory" because:
nobody has been able to produce life from non-living matter under any circumstances in the laboratory, and
nobody has ever observed or been able to induce macroevolution
It exists solely as a way to escape moral responsibility. Darwinism enabled Hitler to justify the torture and slaughter of 6 million Jews (+ 5 million others)... because Jews are just mutated protozoa, right? If you doubt Darwin's influence, read Hitler's Mein Kampf. Also, Josef Stalin killed over 50 million people under the influence of Darwinism and Marxism.
People, THINK about the logically ridiculous and ethically horrific philosophy you are accepting.
I too have been irritated by CmdrTaco's childish anti-Bush ranting. I already blocked JonKatz. Maybe I should block Taco too. Sun Tzu, you should block every editor, which would be like voting for "none of the above". That would be a better protest. On second thought, I seriously doubt they would ever notice.
A big Slashdot link has been prominently displayed on my website with adoring praise for/. You have to admit, there is tons of interesting stuff here. But is it time for principled Slashdotters to delete their/. links? Have a "Burn All Slashdot Ads Day"? I have a love/hate relationship with/. Love the techie stuff, hate the atheistic communist agenda.
I had no idea there were so many hicks in New Hampshire. That state appears to be Bush country. In fact, about 60% of the states support Bush.
the country really needs to be run by the people who exist in the information age, not the agrigatian age.
We got som' a dem horseless carriages last year! Yee haw! I get up to 15 mph in my Edsel!
Heh. OK, now reality: I get over 2 Mbps on my cable modem here in the deep south. There are dozens of dot-com companies (Kryotech ring a bell?) and ISPs in this solid-Bush Southern state. I work at one. Info-geeks and agrarians live here together in harmony, which is a Good Thing. No farmers, no food.
They say the country is split down the middle. Should we SECEDE?
Elections are not won by acreage(?sp) they are won by votes (i.e. people).
You are stating your wishes, not the facts.
The president is NOT elected by "the people". He is elected by states.
My argument for the Electoral College:
Opinions/beliefs tend to be homogenous in certain geographic areas. Because of this natural tendency, it is more important to tally these clumps of homogeneity rather than each individual vote. The Electoral College is a relatively fair, objective way to do this.
With a national popular election, the result would unfairly be biased toward states that contain the areas in the U.S. with
the highest birth-to-death ratios (i.e., possible rabbit breeding),
the highest immigration rates, and
the highest retention rates.
Think this way: a group of people with collective thoughts == a single entity (i.e., a state)
(This is the basis for our federal system -- several state governments functioning independently, yet under the framework of the national government.)
With the Electoral College, we (sort of) count up these collections of thought to determine the winner. The population of any given geographic territory is merely the result of reproductive habits, life expectancies, and immigration patterns. These random factors should not determine the winner of the presidency.
Re:Old method still isn't good enough
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
that's the impression I've picked up from the CNN coverage
Oh, were you looking for unbiased news on the Clinton News Network? Is it any wonder that you got the "impression" which is most favorable to the Democrats? CNN is about as objective as Slashdot.
To win the nation, all you need are city dwellers. So, the parties can just forget about rural folks, and focus solely on the largest groups.
The electoral college preserves minority opinions. If you truly believe that the majority always rules, then let's throw out all those anti-democratic civil rights laws -- those just promote minority opinions as well.
Re:voting from the comfort of your own home -bad
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
My opinion exactly. If anything, it should be a little more difficult. People who have to have pictures of the candidates to make up their mind have NO BUSINESS even looking at a ballot. If they can't read, they're obviously incapable of fulfilling their constitutional duty to decide which candidate is best.
We don't need GUI ballots with pretty pictures. Don't dumb down the ballots for the leeches.
The Founders would have considered internet/webtv voting to be an instrument to promote "mob rule". Elections are already far more democratic than they were under the original Constitution. Let's not take it any further.
If you want citizen rights to own a fire arms, you can't use the second amendment, you better start looking for another means to do so.
The founding fathers beg to differ.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." -- Samuel Adams
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -- Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, p.425-6
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
when that embryo has grown enough that it may be conscious, that is when it is a baby
But when does a person become conscious? In a recent court case, an "expert" (sorry for lack of details, can't remember) testified that a fetus is not really alive until it is conscious. Then, he went on to say that a baby may not become conscious until 12 weeks after birth!!! Therefore, it should be OK to "abort" your child up to 12 weeks after s/he is born!
Nezalhualixtlan, once we allow the killing of unborn babies, it is a very slippery slope to new-born babies, physically deformed or mentally disabled toddlers, sick or frail elderly folks (Kevorkian-style), etc. Most pro-abortion people are not as rational as yourself and will take it further and further. Atheists, satanists, and other people of dangerous belief systems are not bound to have respect for life or compassion for their fellow man. In general, they live self-centered lifestyles and do only what best serves themselves, the rights of others be damned.
I caution you to be wary of the path that pro-abortionists are going down, and try to imagine what that path's final destination might be. I'm only 24, but I am absolutely terrified to think what my children might do to me when I get old and become an "inconvenience" to take care of (assuming I failed to raise them properly). How far will the trend have gone by then? We must stop it now.
Bush has been endorsed by the NRA, so I think it's very safe to say that Bush is pro-Second Amendment. Besides, a vote for Browne is, in effect, a vote for Gore.
Need I remind you what Clinton and Gore stand for? Here is an exerpt of a letter by Ronnie Edleman (DOJ, Clinton Administration), written on behalf of President Clinton:
"The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type. Instead, the Second Amendment is deemed to be a collective right belonging to the state and not to an individual."
We can't wait for a Liberterian to make it to the presidency. Our freedom is riding on this election, and Bush must win!
On a side note, I don't understand how so many others here can be both for Free Software and against FREEDOM.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- Adolf Hitler
The only thing that differentiates a fetus (an unborn infant) from a born infant is its location relative to the uterus. A fetus has a fully functional, independent nervous system. It has a beating heart, an active brain, and a 99%-developed skeleton.
A fetus is more than cells. The electrical current of life flows across its brain's synapses, signifying the beginning of the maturing process of the brain's development. This is a prerequisite of consciousness and intellect, and it creates a huge chasm of difference between a fetus and a mere mass of cells or tissue.
Most importantly, a fetus has a soul. Look up the Soul element on the periodic table of elements. Not there, eh? If it's not an element, it must be a compound. What is the chemical formula of a soul? Other options: it exists in another dimension, it exists in a parallel universe, it is supernatural. The answer is not really the point. However...
Clearly, a fetus is more than cells. S/he is a living, breathing human being who is entitled to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights have far greater importance than a woman's alleged right to choose to have an infantectomy.
Every pregnant woman SHOULD BE DENIED the right to choose whether or not to dispose of her children. If she didn't want children, she should have exercised her right to choose one of the well-known effective, legal, and safe ways to prevent pregnancy.
Abortion is a brutal, morally indefensible practice. It is reminiscent of the abhorrent acts of the Nazis. With tens of millions of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade, it's like our own home-grown, legal holocaust.
The period of time in which our laws supported slavery was the first deep, shameful scar upon American history. With legalized abortion, we are amidst the second. History will judge us harshly.
It is NOT her body!
It is NOT her body!
It is NOT her body!
How many times do we have to say it??
The issue of abortion is about a *NEW* and *SEPARATE* life. It is about the rights of the person being aborted.
Which weighs more heavily: a "surgical procedure" (infantectomy) VS. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Unquestionably, the writers of the constitution would have chosen the latter, as these rights are the basis of the country's founding -- just read the Declaration of Independence. I don't think that they would have argued the finer points of what constitutes a "citizen". These rights were deemed "inalienable" and "endowed by our Creator" (i.e., not subject to human laws).
YES!!
The Constitution clearly states in Article VIII that every citizen shall not be denied the right to choose to kill their offspring.
<sarcasm mode=off>
Hey, here's a hint to all the pro-choicers: Why don't you make a choice BEFORE you have sex?
(Answer: That would require self-control, of which I have none. I am unable to control my behavior because I am a slave to the animalistic instincts of my evolutionary ancestors. Please put me in a zoo.)
Contrary to popular fundie belief, evolution is not a religion.
You're right, evolution is a cult.;-)
More specifically, it was Darwin's hoax to see if he could extinguish a nearly 2000-year-old religion.
It takes a much greater leap of faith to accept evolution than Creationism. Evolution's tenets don't match up with reality. All the trans-evolution species (read: proof) have conveniently died out with no trace of fossils (and those hoaxes don't count!). Also, a natural representation of the fabricated geologic table (which classifies the ages of the Earth) is found nowhere in the Earth's crust, not even in the Grand Canyon. There are tons more refutations, but I won't infuriate you any further with my anti-propaganda. Current science is eating away at the Theory of Evolution more and more every day.
Evolution is more than a theory, though; it is a cultural movement. It is one man's fantasies embraced by bigoted, hate-mongering intellectuals who have no goal but to bring about the downfall of Christianity. I am not paranoid; this comes straight from Darwin's biography, written by Ronald Clark. Evolution was a political movement from the beginning, and it still is.
Why is the belief in Evolution so bad? Here's a test: Would you flinch at shooting me dead? No? Why not? After all, I'm just a worthless mass of cells. People who are pro-choice-to-slaughter claim to have the "right" to execute their babies (up to 12 weeks old! after birth! This is based on court testimony concerning live-birth abortions) because they are not conscious, and therefore not real people. (Note: People on Death Row are not innocent; they earned death. If you deny others' rights, then your rights are denied.)
A person without the conscience of God in his heart will do anything if he can get away with it. Just like Hollow Man. I fear that the evolution movement will lead to a world of people like Hollow Man -- people who would kill anybody for selfish reasons. (I hear echoes of "It's MY body! It's my choice!") Evolution is evil because it is an assault on life, love, and civility.
What is evolution? It is a hodgepodge of wild speculations by science fiction fanatics developed under the guise of "science".
In contrast, the truth of Creationism is simple, elegant, and inescapable. How did life begin? We are created by a timeless, supernatural being. (How can something be timeless? I believe that there is no time; time is an illusion that humans perceive and use to define the relationships between events.) Everything is of God.
True, almost everyone agrees that Al Gore has about twice the IQ of George W Bush, more experience and a much better idea what's going on.
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95
"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."--Vice President Al Gore, 8/11/94
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." --Vice President Al Gore
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." --Al Gore
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Al Gore
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." --Vice President Al Gore
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." --Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93
Ah yes, clearly Albert Gore is the pinnacle of brilliance. The zenith of intellect!
So go out and vote, and partake of this final nugget of insight from Intellectual Al:
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." --Vice President Al Gore
Since it's late, I'll respond only to your question.
But why the hell does he think republicans in general (and Reagan in particular) are saintly?
Republicans protect our liberties and our ability to prosper. Democrats usurp our liberties under the guise of "protection" and seek to equalize everyone's wealth with confiscatory taxes until we all live like Russian peasants -- equality, security, misery.
Reagan is responsible for the US's current prosperity. Reagan's tax cuts allowed American citizens (consumers and investors) and companies (suppliers) to keep, and hence, spend more of their money. This re-investment in the economy, coupled with the R&D investment in technology during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, has provided the current administration with today's great economy.
In general, taxes hurt the economy because they reduce the amount of money circulating in the economy. The government sucks out and consumes our wealth like a leech, but produces nothing in return. Every dollar spent by the government is a net loss to the economy. Reagan let us keep more of our money, thereby, growing the economy. Coincidentally, the bigger the economy, the more revenue the government gets from taxes. This allows tax rates to be lowered without reducing services. It is a paradox that the greater the tax CUTS, the more money the government receives. Attempting to increase the government's revenue by increasing taxes is a futile, vicious cycle that results in a poorer nation and a desperate, tyrannical government.
When you take money away from people and corporations (i.e. the wealth creators) they
make less - income tax
produce/spend less - sales tax
invest less - capital gains tax
inherit less - inheritance tax
etc., etc., etc. so the government makes less too.
I don't want the government to give me anything! Let me keep my money and I won't ask for anything. You whining pansies, if you want something go get it yourself. The government's responsibility is to protect your ability
to get what you want.
I don't understand why some slashdotters want to be slaves (dependents) of the government. I don't want health care, medicare, social security, or anything else. Just let me keep 100% of MY money, you &*#@^ bureaucrat thieves!!! You take my money and give it to someone else...*enflamed* This practice is unjust, unfair, and immoral!
If we could keep our money we wouldn't need or want any handouts. Why do you people LIKE having strings attached to your well-being? These are like Microsoft EULAs for your life. And you say what can the government do for us?? All I want is a military to protect us so we can go about our business without worrying about foreign attacks. Let me keep my money, my guns, my religion, my land, and my FREEDOM! I don't want anything from you so get off my back and get out of my way!
One more thing... Most slashdotters are among the most affluent people in the richest country in the history of the world... and you cry "What is the government gonna do for us? *snivel*" Hasn't this country provided you with enough already? Words that come to mind: selfish, childish, ungrateful, greedy.
18th Century America: "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." - Captain Nathan Hale of the Continental Army
19th Century America: "The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody" - William Sumner
20th Century America: "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." - JFK
21st Century America: "what goodies do you have for meee? it's my g0d given unalienababble right to have a Lexus with a 100 DVD changer and quad Athlons in every room of my house..." - spoiled geeks
And what is the source of Gore's wealth? Albert Gore Sr was the vice president of the Occidental Petroleum corporation and had a half million dollar "salary" until he died in the 70s. Representative Gore Sr was financed by Big Oil, and then Senator Gore Jr took over where his father left off. Al Gore now gets that half million and holds $500,000 in Occidental Petroleum (OXY) stock.
I mentioned that Gore Sr was Oxy's VP, but guess who the president was? Armand Hammer, the founder of the Communist Party and close friend of Joseph Stalin! (Free Republic)
Anybody still want to vote for Gore? Wait, there's more!
Last year, greedy Gore wanted Oxy to drill for oil in the jungles of Colombia, despite protests by the U'wa People who live there. Here is the Rainforest Action Network's anti-Gore/Oxy campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Jesse Jackson is, at heart, a good man. However, many of his actions are divisive and destructive to our culture. Jackson accuses anyone and everyone of racism, from Bill Clinton (true!) to GWB and everybody in between. He is a laughingstock because he has destroyed his own credibility by endlessly dishing out baseless accusations over the years. The more he rants, the more people hate him -- it's a self-fulfilling prophecy and is a recipe for instant racists.
If Bush rigged the election, then why did he almost lose? Looks like he did a terrible job of it. Well, of course he didn't rig it. Just compare the character of Bush to the character of Gore.
In the name of protection, legal products are again being crippled with invasive and cumbersome "features". This is an intrusion of property rights, because it prevents you from controlling what you have paid for and own. The right to private property is fundamental to capitalism and democracy.
The 14th Amendment prevents states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property." Why should businesses be allowed to inflict this deprivation of rights?
Starting wars for political purposes? That's Clinton (à la Kosovo), not Bush. Clinton bombed a couple of African countries to distract the media and the public from his scandals. The Clinton administration dropped bombs on more countries than any other administration in U.S. history. And there wasn't even a war! Thank God the era of Clinton-Gore will soon be over (except for another six scandalous years for masochistic New Yorkers).
Starting a war "makes perfect sense" to amoral people (i.e. most liberals), but not to people with a conscience. Bush possesses principles, which impose limitations on the courses of action he will consider.
Bush's plan to avert a recession is to return to us the money that was OVER-taxed. The government has plundered the nation's wealth with confiscatory taxes, and Bush, in Robin Hood fashion, will give it back to the people who produced it and rightfully own it.
I'll second that. Taking your suggestion to a broader level, it's very important for young people to establish a firm foundation that will enable them to apply their knowledge in a responsible and ethical manner. Think: white hat hackers vs. black hat hackers, or Allies vs. Axis Powers (Nazis).
The ethics issue is especially important in this age of nanotech, biotech, cloning, spying technology, and advanced warfare. What kind of perspective toward people do you want to be possessed by the future leaders of [Big Brother] governments and [evil, greedy] mega-corporations?
Fill in the blank: All humans are _________ .
a) accidents
b) monkey mutants
c) sacred creations of God
d) figments of your imagination
e) CowboyNeal
How one answers this question is far more crucial than which branch of science one studies. Having realized this, I can't suggest a better study material than the Bible.
Lest you dissent from my opinion (a little Ginsberg lingo :-), check out the Skeptics Center.
Oops, I meant to say ODSs (ozone depleting substances) that do occur naturally. Keep in mind that CFCs are only one of the many kinds of ODSs.
Also, I meant to point out that I am not denying that man-made products harm the ozone layer. I am making the case that any negative effects of human activity pales in comparison to those of the earth's own activity and, therefore, is insignificant.
But this will give more ammo to people like Rush Limbaugh who think that humans can't actually damage significant portions of the ozone layer anyway and that it's all volcanoes' fault.
Volcanoes do release a lot of ozone-depleting substances into the atmosphere. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo directly caused significant ozone depletion. You can argue all you want that "natural" CFCs are water soluable, but look at what happened! Volcanic clouds were observed to have depleted ozone. This is documented fact.
Also, don't dismiss the impact of other factors (i.e. solar wind, political agendas, the Almighty Dollar) on ozone depletion, or the lack thereof.
Firstly, the implicit foundation of evolution is spontaneous generation, which was disproven by Louis Pasteur in the 1880s and has been disproven by many scientists since. Secondly, evolutionism violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thirdly, there are zero fossils of transitional (between species) organisms.
The Piltdown Man was a hoax played by a student on his professor. (Of course, the Darwinist faction of scientists were convinced of its authenticity and erroneously announced to the world that it was real. They were all putty in the prankster's hands.) All the other sub-human "species" are concoctions assembled by eager Darwinist disciples ready to believe anything that fits the evolutionist template. These zealots find a couple of teeth here, an ape jawbone there, and claim to have discovered a whole damn species! They are forcing together a few pieces from similar jigsaw puzzles and: 1) declaring that they belong to the same puzzle, and then 2) extrapolating the remaining 99% of the puzzle based on preconceived beliefs about what it's supposed to look like.
Evolutionism has NO foundation whatsoever. Technically speaking, evolution does not even qualify to be considered a "scientific theory" because:
nobody has been able to produce life from non-living matter under any circumstances in the laboratory, and
nobody has ever observed or been able to induce macroevolution
It exists solely as a way to escape moral responsibility. Darwinism enabled Hitler to justify the torture and slaughter of 6 million Jews (+ 5 million others)... because Jews are just mutated protozoa, right? If you doubt Darwin's influence, read Hitler's Mein Kampf. Also, Josef Stalin killed over 50 million people under the influence of Darwinism and Marxism.
People, THINK about the logically ridiculous and ethically horrific philosophy you are accepting.
I too have been irritated by CmdrTaco's childish anti-Bush ranting. I already blocked JonKatz. Maybe I should block Taco too. Sun Tzu, you should block every editor, which would be like voting for "none of the above". That would be a better protest. On second thought, I seriously doubt they would ever notice.
A big Slashdot link has been prominently displayed on my website with adoring praise for /. You have to admit, there is tons of interesting stuff here. But is it time for principled Slashdotters to delete their /. links? Have a "Burn All Slashdot Ads Day"? I have a love/hate relationship with /. Love the techie stuff, hate the atheistic communist agenda.
What to do..
the country really needs to be run by the people who exist in the information age, not the agrigatian age.
We got som' a dem horseless carriages last year! Yee haw! I get up to 15 mph in my Edsel!
Heh. OK, now reality: I get over 2 Mbps on my cable modem here in the deep south. There are dozens of dot-com companies ( Kryotech ring a bell?) and ISPs in this solid-Bush Southern state. I work at one. Info-geeks and agrarians live here together in harmony, which is a Good Thing. No farmers, no food.
They say the country is split down the middle. Should we SECEDE ?
DIXIENET.ORG
You are stating your wishes, not the facts. The president is NOT elected by "the people". He is elected by states.
My argument for the Electoral College:
Opinions/beliefs tend to be homogenous in certain geographic areas. Because of this natural tendency, it is more important to tally these clumps of homogeneity rather than each individual vote. The Electoral College is a relatively fair, objective way to do this.
With a national popular election, the result would unfairly be biased toward states that contain the areas in the U.S. with
the highest birth-to-death ratios (i.e., possible rabbit breeding),
the highest immigration rates, and
the highest retention rates.
Think this way:
a group of people with collective thoughts == a single entity (i.e., a state)
(This is the basis for our federal system -- several state governments functioning independently, yet under the framework of the national government.)
With the Electoral College, we (sort of) count up these collections of thought to determine the winner. The population of any given geographic territory is merely the result of reproductive habits, life expectancies, and immigration patterns. These random factors should not determine the winner of the presidency.
Oh, were you looking for unbiased news on the Clinton News Network? Is it any wonder that you got the "impression" which is most favorable to the Democrats? CNN is about as objective as Slashdot.
For a dose of real news check this out.
The electoral college preserves minority opinions. If you truly believe that the majority always rules, then let's throw out all those anti-democratic civil rights laws -- those just promote minority opinions as well.
The Founders would have considered internet/webtv voting to be an instrument to promote "mob rule". Elections are already far more democratic than they were under the original Constitution. Let's not take it any further.
The founding fathers beg to differ.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
-- Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, p.425-6
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry
But when does a person become conscious? In a recent court case, an "expert" (sorry for lack of details, can't remember) testified that a fetus is not really alive until it is conscious. Then, he went on to say that a baby may not become conscious until 12 weeks after birth!!! Therefore, it should be OK to "abort" your child up to 12 weeks after s/he is born!
Nezalhualixtlan, once we allow the killing of unborn babies, it is a very slippery slope to new-born babies, physically deformed or mentally disabled toddlers, sick or frail elderly folks (Kevorkian-style), etc. Most pro-abortion people are not as rational as yourself and will take it further and further. Atheists, satanists, and other people of dangerous belief systems are not bound to have respect for life or compassion for their fellow man. In general, they live self-centered lifestyles and do only what best serves themselves, the rights of others be damned.
I caution you to be wary of the path that pro-abortionists are going down, and try to imagine what that path's final destination might be. I'm only 24, but I am absolutely terrified to think what my children might do to me when I get old and become an "inconvenience" to take care of (assuming I failed to raise them properly). How far will the trend have gone by then? We must stop it now.
Need I remind you what Clinton and Gore stand for? Here is an exerpt of a letter by Ronnie Edleman (DOJ, Clinton Administration), written on behalf of President Clinton:
"The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type. Instead, the Second Amendment is deemed to be a collective right belonging to the state and not to an individual."
We can't wait for a Liberterian to make it to the presidency. Our freedom is riding on this election, and Bush must win!
On a side note, I don't understand how so many others here can be both for Free Software and against FREEDOM .
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolf Hitler
A fetus is more than cells. The electrical current of life flows across its brain's synapses, signifying the beginning of the maturing process of the brain's development. This is a prerequisite of consciousness and intellect, and it creates a huge chasm of difference between a fetus and a mere mass of cells or tissue.
Most importantly, a fetus has a soul. Look up the Soul element on the periodic table of elements. Not there, eh? If it's not an element, it must be a compound. What is the chemical formula of a soul? Other options: it exists in another dimension, it exists in a parallel universe, it is supernatural. The answer is not really the point. However...
Clearly, a fetus is more than cells. S/he is a living, breathing human being who is entitled to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights have far greater importance than a woman's alleged right to choose to have an infantectomy.
Every pregnant woman SHOULD BE DENIED the right to choose whether or not to dispose of her children. If she didn't want children, she should have exercised her right to choose one of the well-known effective, legal, and safe ways to prevent pregnancy.
Abortion is a brutal, morally indefensible practice. It is reminiscent of the abhorrent acts of the Nazis. With tens of millions of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade, it's like our own home-grown, legal holocaust.
The period of time in which our laws supported slavery was the first deep, shameful scar upon American history. With legalized abortion, we are amidst the second. History will judge us harshly.
It is NOT her body!
It is NOT her body!
How many times do we have to say it??
The issue of abortion is about a *NEW* and *SEPARATE* life. It is about the rights of the person being aborted.
Which weighs more heavily:
a "surgical procedure" (infantectomy) VS. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Unquestionably, the writers of the constitution would have chosen the latter, as these rights are the basis of the country's founding -- just read the Declaration of Independence. I don't think that they would have argued the finer points of what constitutes a "citizen". These rights were deemed "inalienable" and "endowed by our Creator" (i.e., not subject to human laws).
The Constitution clearly states in Article VIII that every citizen shall not be denied the right to choose to kill their offspring.
<sarcasm mode=off>
Hey, here's a hint to all the pro-choicers: Why don't you make a choice BEFORE you have sex?
(Answer: That would require self-control, of which I have none. I am unable to control my behavior because I am a slave to the animalistic instincts of my evolutionary ancestors. Please put me in a zoo.)
You're right, evolution is a cult. ;-)
More specifically, it was Darwin's hoax to see if he could extinguish a nearly 2000-year-old religion.
It takes a much greater leap of faith to accept evolution than Creationism. Evolution's tenets don't match up with reality. All the trans-evolution species (read: proof) have conveniently died out with no trace of fossils (and those hoaxes don't count!). Also, a natural representation of the fabricated geologic table (which classifies the ages of the Earth) is found nowhere in the Earth's crust, not even in the Grand Canyon. There are tons more refutations, but I won't infuriate you any further with my anti-propaganda. Current science is eating away at the Theory of Evolution more and more every day.
Evolution is more than a theory, though; it is a cultural movement. It is one man's fantasies embraced by bigoted, hate-mongering intellectuals who have no goal but to bring about the downfall of Christianity. I am not paranoid; this comes straight from Darwin's biography, written by Ronald Clark. Evolution was a political movement from the beginning, and it still is.
Why is the belief in Evolution so bad? Here's a test: Would you flinch at shooting me dead? No? Why not? After all, I'm just a worthless mass of cells. People who are pro-choice-to-slaughter claim to have the "right" to execute their babies (up to 12 weeks old! after birth! This is based on court testimony concerning live-birth abortions) because they are not conscious, and therefore not real people. (Note: People on Death Row are not innocent; they earned death. If you deny others' rights, then your rights are denied.)
A person without the conscience of God in his heart will do anything if he can get away with it. Just like Hollow Man. I fear that the evolution movement will lead to a world of people like Hollow Man -- people who would kill anybody for selfish reasons. (I hear echoes of "It's MY body! It's my choice!") Evolution is evil because it is an assault on life, love, and civility.
What is evolution? It is a hodgepodge of wild speculations by science fiction fanatics developed under the guise of "science".
In contrast, the truth of Creationism is simple, elegant, and inescapable. How did life begin? We are created by a timeless, supernatural being. (How can something be timeless? I believe that there is no time; time is an illusion that humans perceive and use to define the relationships between events.) Everything is of God.
- "The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95
- "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore
- "Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."--Vice President Al Gore, 8/11/94
- "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." --Vice President Al Gore
- "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." --Al Gore
- "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Al Gore
- "We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." --Vice President Al Gore
- "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." --Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93
Ah yes, clearly Albert Gore is the pinnacle of brilliance. The zenith of intellect!So go out and vote, and partake of this final nugget of insight from Intellectual Al:
But why the hell does he think republicans in general (and Reagan in particular) are saintly?
Republicans protect our liberties and our ability to prosper. Democrats usurp our liberties under the guise of "protection" and seek to equalize everyone's wealth with confiscatory taxes until we all live like Russian peasants -- equality, security, misery.
Reagan is responsible for the US's current prosperity. Reagan's tax cuts allowed American citizens (consumers and investors) and companies (suppliers) to keep, and hence, spend more of their money. This re-investment in the economy, coupled with the R&D investment in technology during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, has provided the current administration with today's great economy.
In general, taxes hurt the economy because they reduce the amount of money circulating in the economy. The government sucks out and consumes our wealth like a leech, but produces nothing in return. Every dollar spent by the government is a net loss to the economy. Reagan let us keep more of our money, thereby, growing the economy. Coincidentally, the bigger the economy, the more revenue the government gets from taxes. This allows tax rates to be lowered without reducing services. It is a paradox that the greater the tax CUTS, the more money the government receives. Attempting to increase the government's revenue by increasing taxes is a futile, vicious cycle that results in a poorer nation and a desperate, tyrannical government.
When you take money away from people and corporations (i.e. the wealth creators) they
- make less - income tax
- produce/spend less - sales tax
- invest less - capital gains tax
- inherit less - inheritance tax
etc., etc., etc. so the government makes less too.I don't want the government to give me anything! Let me keep my money and I won't ask for anything. You whining pansies , if you want something go get it yourself. The government's responsibility is to protect your ability to get what you want.
I don't understand why some slashdotters want to be slaves (dependents) of the government. I don't want health care, medicare, social security, or anything else. Just let me keep 100% of MY money, you &*#@^ bureaucrat thieves!!! You take my money and give it to someone else...*enflamed* This practice is unjust, unfair, and immoral!
If we could keep our money we wouldn't need or want any handouts. Why do you people LIKE having strings attached to your well-being? These are like Microsoft EULAs for your life. And you say what can the government do for us?? All I want is a military to protect us so we can go about our business without worrying about foreign attacks. Let me keep my money, my guns, my religion, my land, and my FREEDOM! I don't want anything from you so get off my back and get out of my way!
One more thing... Most slashdotters are among the most affluent people in the richest country in the history of the world... and you cry "What is the government gonna do for us? *snivel*" Hasn't this country provided you with enough already? Words that come to mind: selfish, childish, ungrateful, greedy.
18th Century America: "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." - Captain Nathan Hale of the Continental Army
19th Century America: "The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody" - William Sumner
20th Century America: "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." - JFK
21st Century America: "what goodies do you have for meee? it's my g0d given unalienababble right to have a Lexus with a 100 DVD changer and quad Athlons in every room of my house..." - spoiled geeks
I mentioned that Gore Sr was Oxy's VP, but guess who the president was? Armand Hammer, the founder of the Communist Party and close friend of Joseph Stalin! (Free Republic)
Anybody still want to vote for Gore? Wait, there's more!
Last year, greedy Gore wanted Oxy to drill for oil in the jungles of Colombia, despite protests by the U'wa People who live there. Here is the Rainforest Action Network's anti-Gore/Oxy campaign.