Well, I guess those little things mean more to you than they do to me. I've wrestled with the abortion for minors issue - I'm in favor of disclosure but not consent. Girls of a reproductive age don't get into that kind of trouble by asking for consent. If the state can try 14 year olds as adults in crimes, can't the state also recognize that like aged minors that partake in adult actions should have adult remedies unrestricted by the convictions of their parents? I'm not sure, though, I don't have a daughter, and I'm sure it would be tough. I think the primary stakeholder is the woman (most women I know feel more strongly about the issue (and most women I know are pro-abortion, for some reason (even the ones who have never had one and say they never would))), so I'd be concerned about requiring notification that interferes with the woman's rights. If you put a lot of weight in the rights of the fetus, as I think you do, you'll probably disagree.
I'm weakly in-favor of abortion rights, but I don't care if there are a fair number of restrictions on it. Trimester limits and some notification is perhaps appropriate. Specific procedures should probably be left up to the medical community and not be legistlated. The only time you hear about some medical procedure in politics is when anti-abortion groups describe abortion procedures to try to achieve a strong reaction. If you described open-heart surgery in the same terms, many americans would vote against it, if they could.
I'm strongly in favor of the second amendment, but likewise, some restrictions make sense. If the first ammendemnt (the most important one, imo) can be limited by the government, then the 2nd one surely can, too.
As you can see, my positions on these issues give me greater leeway in picking candidates based on other issues, personality, skills, and even based on their past actions or tendencies to start wars with inadequate justification. Lucky for me, I guess, unlucky for you.
What do you do when candidate A is pro-abortion, anti-gun-control, and candidate B is anti-abortion, pro-gun-control? Which one wins? Do you go from a two issue voter to a single issue voter?
Also, will anti-abortion and anti-gun-control always win over pro-abortion and pro-gun-control for any two candidates? What if the anti-candidate is certifiably insane, or intends to enslave candadians in SPAM authoring factories or implment forced euthanasia at 30 ala logan's run? Or what if the anti-candidate wants to end drug prohibition? Or what if the pro-candidate intends to balance the federal budget without raising taxes or cutting programs you care about? Do you then become a 3-issue voter?
Moral men admit mistakes. Immoral men will go to any length to justify their actions and will never admit wrong doing. Moral men think long and hard about starting actions that result in the deaths of 15000 people. Moral men start wars as a last resort. Moral men start wars as a last resort when they say that is what they intend to do - i.e moral men keep their word. Moral men do not prey upon the fears of americans to facilitate acts of foreign agression. Moral men are not certain in the face of all doubt but always doubt their information and actions when either of those result in harm to others. Moral men do not accuse others of "flip-flopping" if they themselves have "flip-flopped" repeatedly - i.e. moral men are not hypocrites. Moral men do not misconstrue the words and ideas of their opponents in order to attack an easier target - i.e. moral me do not construct straw men. Moral men step down from positions of authority when it is clear they don't have the intellect, judgement, or leadership to justly execute that authority.
After 4 years of a republican president, 4 years of a republican congress, and 4 years of a fairly conservative supreme court, we still have Roe V. Wade. Bush made no in-roads on abortion. If Bush is reelected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal. If Kerry is elected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal. There is a constant battle over edge cases (minors, specific procedures, term definitions, etc), but you're deluded if you think any of that is going to change much or if any movement on those small issues indicate a real precursor to change on the larger issue.
The case isn't much different for gun-control - don't expect any real differences in federal gun-control if either candidate (or anyone else) is elected.
Single issue voters are the poster children for ineffectual american politics. Enjoy.
Let me guess, one of your issues is abortion? Single issues voters are the puppets on the hands of the republicrat duopoly in the sick joke that is the American politics show. Double issue voters are just slightly less repugnant.
That article is about mistreatment of detainees. It has nothing to do with the "accidental" (or collateral) killing of innocent people. Maybe you just want to argue with me, or maybe you're truly fucking stupid and believe that those Iraqis who lose their children in this mess will feel placated by the remedies available to them to seek justice against the American invaders. Or maybe I'm the idiot and your link to a case of prosecution against American GI's proves that all wrongs to Iraqi's will be righted, those who have lost will not bear a grudge or join/fund terrorist groups, and that the world really is a safer place. Yeah, it's probably me.
Oh, he must have tortured a member of your family for you to know what that feels like. Since you know what that feels like, maybe you can answer this related question: If some US soldier accidently killed you children while "liberating" your country, would you want justice? What kind of justice can you expect to get through the UN or through the US or a court of law? None? Perhaps there are other means of obtaining revenge on the US - would a wrong individual like yourself be tempted to seek these alternative justices? Yeah, the world is a safer place now.
Sure it's the "United States of America", but the documents which define that uniting describe "We the poeple... of the people, for the people, by the people". Not "We the states... of the states, for the states, by the states". Or some such anywho. And of course, states, like all governments, are just social constracts of peoples, so even allowing for the uniting of states, you're still ultimitely dealing with people.
The frequent argument I hear that occupiers of less populous areas deserve more presidential selecting power than occupiers of more populous areas is laughable. It is frequently expressed in terms that if you look at closely, seem to be in favor of giving voting rights to land. WTF. Just look at the red and blue coloring of the states or portions thereof. As if land could vote or deserve representation in our representative democracy.
Thought experiment for you. If there was a state in this union, say Wyoming, in which every resident either moved, died, or was disenfrachised, excepting one, such that the entire state population for voting was one person, what would happen? That person would get huge power in determing the president of the untied states. Justify this assymptotic property of our current presidential vote weighting system. Keep in mind the president is the chief of the executive branch whose job is to act for all the poeple of the country. The senate has the role of acting on behalf states. IMO, this property is unsupportable .
PPPPPPffffff.
Newsflash: city people already run this country. The number of poeple living in urban or sub-urban centers is greater than the number of urban dwellers. Even in the less populous states, it's the city dwellers that run the states.
The best thing to do is make sure it never happens again. None of the rhetoric spewed by the current administration or their hopeful replacements makes me believe they learned anything about precaution, restraint, or reasoned justification. There is no responsibility in DC.
There were inspectors in Iraq in 2002 that had to be evacuated. Saddam was making no agressive moves. The 12 year standoff crippled Saddam's agressive ability. The UN isn't faultless. Clinton was misinformed. France was misinformed. It's all crap and they all suck. Bush doesn't suck any less for it. The USA has more WMD than any other country out there. What does that justify?
What would I have done instead. Spent some of the wasted 130 Billion Iraq war dollars on better intelligence and covert operations if required. But that's irrelavent. I'm not the president. The man who is president has no trouble fining apologists like yourself, so I'm sure nothing will change.
Even if it was just a mistake and not a lie, it should really be a politically fatal mistake. As leader of the country and commander in chief, it is Bush's responsibility to make sure we don't "accidently" invade another country. He bears the highest responsibility for a government frenzied into war when it is found that frenzy led to mistakes in intelligence and judgement. Add to this the fact that Bush had a pre 9/11 objective of invading Iraq, and you could rightly conclude that he didn't do just dillegence in ascertaining the veracity of any pre-war intelligence. That moves Bush's actions firmly toward willfull igornace, at least.
Bush should be apologizing profusely for the US aggression in Iraq. UN hearings are in order. Reparations should be made. Instead, we have a man that gets on TV and says that eventhough all the pre-war intelligence was wrong, we were still justified to invade Iraq. What does that make the US?
For the record, it appears the Democrat party has done America a great injustice and nominated a man who says he also would have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know today. Neither one is an acceptible president. Bush needs to go for punative reasons - either that or we start the impeachment in 2005. Defeat Kerry in '08.
When I got my iRiver, is was significantly cheaper than the equivalent iPod. FM tuner, sound recorder, multi-codec support, mass storage device: there are more differences than jus tthe oggs. It's barely larger than the ipod, too.
if you wear something like an Adidas shirt for example, and Nike is a sponsor and Adidas is not, they will confiscate it. Frankly, I would flat out refuse. This is so ridiculous and is a perfect example of where our culture is going.
An even better example of where our culture is going is the fact that you think it's perfectly reasonable to pay money to wear clothing which has the very dominant feature of being an advertising device for the company making that clothing. So you've chosen to be a voluntary addidas billboard rather than a nike billboard, and you're upset that consumerism dominates our society to the extent that events, like clothes, are mere advertising opportunities, and as such are controlled by the advertisers?
MANY of the programs available through open source is fucking terrible and certainly nothing more than a free knockoff of a Windows/etc counterpart (hell wasn't that the entire point of Linux in the first place)?
MANY of the programs available on windows and/or from microsoft are fucking terrible. Also, MANY of the programs available on windows and/or from microsoft are certainly nothing more than non-free knockoffs, copies, or borgifications of existing products made by other companies. If you don't think MS or other commercial vendors do their fair share of inspired copying, you need to pull your head out of your ass.
The first time I saw your sig, I thought, "heh - funny". But really, what does it mean?
You want to allow Bin Laden to continue to exist. To get rid of him, 'rm' would be more appropriate.
But you want to make it so that he, his fellow Al Quaidians, and anyone in the world can run him.
If he supports options, anyone can use him against any target they deem fit, e.g./corporate/america, or/monarchies/saudi_arabia
Expect a visit from your favorite 3 letter agency shortly.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm weakly in-favor of abortion rights, but I don't care if there are a fair number of restrictions on it. Trimester limits and some notification is perhaps appropriate. Specific procedures should probably be left up to the medical community and not be legistlated. The only time you hear about some medical procedure in politics is when anti-abortion groups describe abortion procedures to try to achieve a strong reaction. If you described open-heart surgery in the same terms, many americans would vote against it, if they could.
I'm strongly in favor of the second amendment, but likewise, some restrictions make sense. If the first ammendemnt (the most important one, imo) can be limited by the government, then the 2nd one surely can, too.
As you can see, my positions on these issues give me greater leeway in picking candidates based on other issues, personality, skills, and even based on their past actions or tendencies to start wars with inadequate justification. Lucky for me, I guess, unlucky for you.
What do you do when candidate A is pro-abortion, anti-gun-control, and candidate B is anti-abortion, pro-gun-control? Which one wins? Do you go from a two issue voter to a single issue voter?
Also, will anti-abortion and anti-gun-control always win over pro-abortion and pro-gun-control for any two candidates? What if the anti-candidate is certifiably insane, or intends to enslave candadians in SPAM authoring factories or implment forced euthanasia at 30 ala logan's run? Or what if the anti-candidate wants to end drug prohibition? Or what if the pro-candidate intends to balance the federal budget without raising taxes or cutting programs you care about? Do you then become a 3-issue voter?
Just curious.
Just curious.
Moral men admit mistakes. Immoral men will go to any length to justify their actions and will never admit wrong doing. Moral men think long and hard about starting actions that result in the deaths of 15000 people. Moral men start wars as a last resort. Moral men start wars as a last resort when they say that is what they intend to do - i.e moral men keep their word. Moral men do not prey upon the fears of americans to facilitate acts of foreign agression. Moral men are not certain in the face of all doubt but always doubt their information and actions when either of those result in harm to others. Moral men do not accuse others of "flip-flopping" if they themselves have "flip-flopped" repeatedly - i.e. moral men are not hypocrites. Moral men do not misconstrue the words and ideas of their opponents in order to attack an easier target - i.e. moral me do not construct straw men. Moral men step down from positions of authority when it is clear they don't have the intellect, judgement, or leadership to justly execute that authority.
The case isn't much different for gun-control - don't expect any real differences in federal gun-control if either candidate (or anyone else) is elected.
Single issue voters are the poster children for ineffectual american politics. Enjoy.
Let me guess, one of your issues is abortion? Single issues voters are the puppets on the hands of the republicrat duopoly in the sick joke that is the American politics show. Double issue voters are just slightly less repugnant.
That article is about mistreatment of detainees. It has nothing to do with the "accidental" (or collateral) killing of innocent people. Maybe you just want to argue with me, or maybe you're truly fucking stupid and believe that those Iraqis who lose their children in this mess will feel placated by the remedies available to them to seek justice against the American invaders. Or maybe I'm the idiot and your link to a case of prosecution against American GI's proves that all wrongs to Iraqi's will be righted, those who have lost will not bear a grudge or join/fund terrorist groups, and that the world really is a safer place. Yeah, it's probably me.
Oh, he must have tortured a member of your family for you to know what that feels like. Since you know what that feels like, maybe you can answer this related question: If some US soldier accidently killed you children while "liberating" your country, would you want justice? What kind of justice can you expect to get through the UN or through the US or a court of law? None? Perhaps there are other means of obtaining revenge on the US - would a wrong individual like yourself be tempted to seek these alternative justices? Yeah, the world is a safer place now.
The frequent argument I hear that occupiers of less populous areas deserve more presidential selecting power than occupiers of more populous areas is laughable. It is frequently expressed in terms that if you look at closely, seem to be in favor of giving voting rights to land. WTF. Just look at the red and blue coloring of the states or portions thereof. As if land could vote or deserve representation in our representative democracy.
Thought experiment for you. If there was a state in this union, say Wyoming, in which every resident either moved, died, or was disenfrachised, excepting one, such that the entire state population for voting was one person, what would happen? That person would get huge power in determing the president of the untied states. Justify this assymptotic property of our current presidential vote weighting system. Keep in mind the president is the chief of the executive branch whose job is to act for all the poeple of the country. The senate has the role of acting on behalf states. IMO, this property is unsupportable . PPPPPPffffff.
Newsflash: city people already run this country. The number of poeple living in urban or sub-urban centers is greater than the number of urban dwellers. Even in the less populous states, it's the city dwellers that run the states.
Not following the rules is part of the game, too.
C++ has an implicit return EXIT_SUCCESS from main. The lack of a declaration for printf, however, makes this first post highly suspect.
So what explosive technology from this world has a larger blast radius than a nuke?
The best thing to do is make sure it never happens again. None of the rhetoric spewed by the current administration or their hopeful replacements makes me believe they learned anything about precaution, restraint, or reasoned justification. There is no responsibility in DC.
What would I have done instead. Spent some of the wasted 130 Billion Iraq war dollars on better intelligence and covert operations if required. But that's irrelavent. I'm not the president. The man who is president has no trouble fining apologists like yourself, so I'm sure nothing will change.
Bush should be apologizing profusely for the US aggression in Iraq. UN hearings are in order. Reparations should be made. Instead, we have a man that gets on TV and says that eventhough all the pre-war intelligence was wrong, we were still justified to invade Iraq. What does that make the US?
For the record, it appears the Democrat party has done America a great injustice and nominated a man who says he also would have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know today. Neither one is an acceptible president. Bush needs to go for punative reasons - either that or we start the impeachment in 2005. Defeat Kerry in '08.
That's exactly what it means.
When I got my iRiver, is was significantly cheaper than the equivalent iPod. FM tuner, sound recorder, multi-codec support, mass storage device: there are more differences than jus tthe oggs. It's barely larger than the ipod, too.
"Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
Yours truly, star wars fanatic.
An even better example of where our culture is going is the fact that you think it's perfectly reasonable to pay money to wear clothing which has the very dominant feature of being an advertising device for the company making that clothing. So you've chosen to be a voluntary addidas billboard rather than a nike billboard, and you're upset that consumerism dominates our society to the extent that events, like clothes, are mere advertising opportunities, and as such are controlled by the advertisers?
Imagine 15,239,425 beowulf clusters of beowulf cluster jokes!
MANY of the programs available on windows and/or from microsoft are fucking terrible. Also, MANY of the programs available on windows and/or from microsoft are certainly nothing more than non-free knockoffs, copies, or borgifications of existing products made by other companies. If you don't think MS or other commercial vendors do their fair share of inspired copying, you need to pull your head out of your ass.
Yes, that's is what I was trying to point out. "executable" != "execuable".
The first time I saw your sig, I thought, "heh - funny". But really, what does it mean? /corporate/america, or /monarchies/saudi_arabia
You want to allow Bin Laden to continue to exist. To get rid of him, 'rm' would be more appropriate.
But you want to make it so that he, his fellow Al Quaidians, and anyone in the world can run him.
If he supports options, anyone can use him against any target they deem fit, e.g.
Expect a visit from your favorite 3 letter agency shortly.
I predict that in 500 years, you'll be dead. The Indians will get the last (spiritual) laugh - ownership is an illusion.
http://www.typingtest.com/
Report back here - wpm and error rate.