That's why it was called DOMA, but I guess we are going down your route towards the end of marriage as an institution and, as you say, unlimited fucking and changing partners and raising kids by single parents or no parents at all on a much greater scale.
Polygamy will be next, its just a matter of time. Who is an injured party in incest? Say a father and (adult) son want to get married, why would you deny them that right? Same with say marriage of convenience (for a green card etc), group marriage, marriage between humans and animals etc. which of course will mean the end of marriage as an institution.
Scalia is in favor of originalist interpretation of the Constitution and he's been pretty consistent about that. It is absurd to say that the framers of the Constitution intended the equal protection clause to mean equal protection for every form of marriage, therefore the court should have no basis for overturning the people's representatives decision to pass this law. He is the one being consistent here, it is the proponents of 'living constitution' who are always unpredictable and inconsistent because they believe Justices should vote based on their personal feelings of right and wrong.
First of all, almost at price parity is not the same thing as at parity. Secondly, please provide a link to research that makes that claim and I will probably be able to help you locate misleading data, biased interpretation and outright lies in it. There is a lot of that sort of thing going on as the competition for funding $$$ heats up among both real and fantasy scientists.
All of this thanks to huge R&D investments in Germany, China and USA. The free market comes after.
Another thing is that private spending would likely be much higher if the government didn't create both free research (hey, why should private businesses pay for it then) and unfair competition, both of which needlessly push private money out and burden the taxpayer instead. This is overall, not specific to solar/wind, so I don't know, possibly you are right when it comes to just those areas.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food, which means less obesity! Now we just need to increase gasoline taxes so they will get more exercise as well. On top of that, high energy consumers, such as, you know, factories, will have to cut down production, perhaps even close down completely, further reducing the pollution! There is just no end to the benefits from artificially inflating the cost of energy.
Are you saying that the US covert agencies did it by overthrowing those dicatorships?
I am saying that the victory of the USA in the cold war brought about this change and it was a deliberate policy of the US since Woodrow Wilson to use it's power to promote democracy and freedom in the world in the long run, of course in a pragmatic way that does not sacrifice its own immediate interests. It's not a matter of being on suicidal crusade for some kind of perfect world, it is a matter of being on the side of good wherever possible. Russia for example has always seen that as our weakness, because it never understood the point having any policy that does not serve only the national interests of Russia. The world would be A LOT worse if Russia had won. I am saying USA and Russia, rather than NATO and Warsaw Pact or USSR because that is the reality, the rest were just pawns.
You have the convert's enthusiasm.
And you are taking what you have for granted.
For example up until about 1968 black people were still being killed for trying to vote in the South, and they're still not doing that well. If you were black, you'd be a lot better off in the Communist bloc in the 1970s.
Really, a black person would show up to vote in 1968 and federal secret police would shove them in the back of a van and take them to a secret prison, or to an execution site where they would put a bullet in the back of their head without a trial? If that is really what happened and on a massive scale all over the country, then it would perhaps be a fair comparison to what was happening in the communist block.
rich oligarchs in this country who run everything, and the working people who are trying to have a democracy instead.
Oh god, try living in the real world please. This kind of crap is not worth replying to.
Germany was also the greatest major country in the world, in the 1920s and 1930s.We still use their industrial techniques and medical discoveries. So these things can fall aparat fast.
there are a lot of reasons for the rise of Hitler in the 30s in Germany but I'm pretty sure none of them have any similarity whatsoever to the situation in the USA today.
All countries do the same things when it comes to foreign relations, especially espionage and things like that. It's a game that people in the know play behind the scenes and not even elected leaders are always privy to what's going on. It is ridiculous to say you are ashamed of the USA because it is one of the players (which it has to be).
As someone who was born in a communist country but thankfully moved early to the USA, saying that we are doing the same stuff that Communists were doing in the 70s is an insult to people who lived under those regimes of the same proportion as seriously equating a judge who gives you too high a fine for a traffic violation to Nazis slaughtering millions.
In the 70s, over 3/4 of the people in the world lived under dictatorships and today, only 40 years later, 90% of the people live in democracies. Who do you think had the greatest role to play in bringing about that enormous change for the better? Russians, or the Chinese, or the Europeans, where in the 70s one half of the countries were Communist dictatorships and even in the West at least three countries (Spain, Portugal and Greece) were Fascist dictatorships? How did it happen? Just naturally, for the first time in the history of the world, countries all over the world decided to become democracies?
It is sad that you lack a sense of proportion to realize that while the USA is not perfect, it is far from being a country you should be ashamed of, in fact it is quite obviously the greatest major country in the the world, possibly in the history of the world.
What kind of whistle blowing crusade is he on by revealing US espionage programs details to the Chinese and then seeking shelter with them? Whatever other things he may be doing, that part at least is treason.
I don't know how the discussion of governmental spying can get any more widespread? You mean, the front page story in every media outlet in the world might not get noticed, but some random guy making a font - well, that will get everybody's attention.
The elephant in the room is Islam. It is a different proposition to be opposing say a communist militia in your country and opposing an Islamist militia. People who are thought from childhood to believe that Koran is a literal word of God cannot reasonably oppose Jihadists who are fighting infidels for the glory of Islam, because that is what God clearly orders them to do! This is the power of religion. When you have people fanatical enough to torture and murder young children in front of their parents for making an innocent joke mentioning Mohammad's name (as happened the other day in Syria) it is a scary force to oppose for ordinary unarmed people. The only way forward is for the civilized world to demand secularization of the government in Islamic countries (Turkey style) and reform of Islam, which unfortunately will mean conflict with Islam for a long time.
We didn't bomb them to stop the Holocaust, we bombed them to win the war. Germans started it by bombing the crap of civilian areas all over Europe at the beginning of the war, sinking civilian ships etc etc. It was that kind of war.
Unfair to the UN and unfair to wealthy nations. If they didn't do anything at all, the poorest people in the world would be much worse off and literally millions of people would have died of starvation and disease. Helping countries with corrupt governments (almost all of Africa) or no government at all (such as Somalia) is a more difficult problem than you think and in every place where Islamic radicals operate they make that problem much more difficult.
Technically, you owe taxes even if you don't convert bitcoin into 'real' money. Barter transactions are still taxed. For example if you get paid with goods (say bitcoin, or camels) for some work, you are getting taxed on the fair market value of those goods.
Right, because there are no government agencies other than the NSA who might have made those requests. Most of those requests were made by local police departments and are related to ordinary crimes, missing persons etc and nothing to do with national security.
Comedy Central, which I'll admit has some left leanings, but in case you didn't know, has been known to roast Obama, as well
The problem with Comedy Central is not that it has obvious left leanings but that it is a political news (or rather political opinion) channel that attempts to influence public opinion as much as any other political news outlet, but without any fact checking requirements of a real news organization. You can catch, say, Fox News or MSNBC reporting a story in a blatantly biased way, even misreporting or ignoring important facts, and you can say so, and in theory their reputation should suffer. If you do the same with Jon Stewart, he will just laugh and say, hey it's just comedy, ha, ha. But it's obviously not just comedy. He is having it both ways.
Sometimes I wonder it Obama's support of NSA domestic spying is just a clever way to get Republicans to come out in favor of personal privacy.
Gee, how much kool-aid did you drink?
You are part of the problem. You are comparing an idealized version of the best part of your side (and giving them every possible benefit of the doubt and making up excuses for them) with a cartoonishly exaggerated version of the worst of the other side. Let me guess, ALL your information comes from watching and reading liberal media?
The only party in favor of personal privacy are the Libertarians and a small but growing libertarian camp within the Republican party. Mainstream Republicans and Democrats don't even consider it an issue worth thinking about.
It's too late once you already bought the thing. There should be a message on the box in big bold letters, "this device may be used to watch what you are doing in your own house" or something, like on cigarette packs. If you don't mind, sure buy it but you should have the information ahead of time.
I wouldn't say there is no value as Justices may need to have a chance to clarify something etc. It is vastly overrated though and it is one of the reasons most Justices do not want cameras in court during oral arguments. As Scalia said, if the media is willing to follow all the relevant details of a case from beginning to end and devote a large amount of time to it (such as on CSPAN for example) then cameras would be fine, but just focusing all the attention on few soundbites and back and forth between judges and lawyers during oral arguments would be entirely unrepresentative of what the court actually does.
I don't see why is this such a really, really bad idea? Yes both companies have a history of sucking but if Microsoft wants to move more into consumer electronics and have its own stores, this seems like a quick and low cost way to do it as opposed to starting from scratch.
Btw, fields that operate within reality, such as sciences, economics, business etc are actually least likely to have liberal professors, it's the ones that operate in the clouds of smoke such as liberal arts courses, humanities that tend to attract them the most.
Your childish posts are not really worth replying to and I shouldn't have done so in the first place. But for what it's worth, your posts in this thread can be translated as simply stating that being liberal is right and being conservative is wrong, therefore if you are liberal you are right and if you are a conservative you are wrong. That doesn't even qualify as a logical fallacy, it is simply nonsense.
Contrary to the uninformed popular opinion, Clarence Thomas has been very active during his time on the court. He just mostly leaves questions in oral arguments to other judges, which is only a small part of what judges do. It used to be common for Justices to take that approach, but recently it stands out since the others have started to enjoy the sound of their own cleverness much more, whether it contributes to the resolution of a case or not.
You are calling him delusional but you are actually exposing your own delusions.
Liberal bias among university professors has been confirmed in too many papers to mention, I'll let you google it yourself but herearea fewexamples
We are talking over 90% of professors in certain fields identifying themselves as 'liberal' or 'progressive' and a similar bias in donations to the two parties.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why it was called DOMA, but I guess we are going down your route towards the end of marriage as an institution and, as you say, unlimited fucking and changing partners and raising kids by single parents or no parents at all on a much greater scale.
Polygamy will be next, its just a matter of time. Who is an injured party in incest? Say a father and (adult) son want to get married, why would you deny them that right? Same with say marriage of convenience (for a green card etc), group marriage, marriage between humans and animals etc. which of course will mean the end of marriage as an institution.
Scalia is in favor of originalist interpretation of the Constitution and he's been pretty consistent about that. It is absurd to say that the framers of the Constitution intended the equal protection clause to mean equal protection for every form of marriage, therefore the court should have no basis for overturning the people's representatives decision to pass this law. He is the one being consistent here, it is the proponents of 'living constitution' who are always unpredictable and inconsistent because they believe Justices should vote based on their personal feelings of right and wrong.
Wind is almost at price parity with dirty coal.
First of all, almost at price parity is not the same thing as at parity. Secondly, please provide a link to research that makes that claim and I will probably be able to help you locate misleading data, biased interpretation and outright lies in it. There is a lot of that sort of thing going on as the competition for funding $$$ heats up among both real and fantasy scientists.
All of this thanks to huge R&D investments in Germany, China and USA. The free market comes after.
A little bit of perspective: two-thirds of R&D funding in the USA comes from the private sector, both for-profit and non-profit: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07317 In fact, private money going into scientific research in the USA is pretty close to being greater than the total R&D spending of China and Germany put together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending Five years ago this was definitely true, today more doubtful due to Chinese increase in spending.
Another thing is that private spending would likely be much higher if the government didn't create both free research (hey, why should private businesses pay for it then) and unfair competition, both of which needlessly push private money out and burden the taxpayer instead. This is overall, not specific to solar/wind, so I don't know, possibly you are right when it comes to just those areas.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food, which means less obesity! Now we just need to increase gasoline taxes so they will get more exercise as well. On top of that, high energy consumers, such as, you know, factories, will have to cut down production, perhaps even close down completely, further reducing the pollution! There is just no end to the benefits from artificially inflating the cost of energy.
There are copyright restrictions on Hostess recipes.
There is a recipe involved? I thought they just squirted some cream inside of a spongy cake and wrapped it in cellophane.
Meant to say countries. Way more than 90% actually.
Are you saying that the US covert agencies did it by overthrowing those dicatorships?
I am saying that the victory of the USA in the cold war brought about this change and it was a deliberate policy of the US since Woodrow Wilson to use it's power to promote democracy and freedom in the world in the long run, of course in a pragmatic way that does not sacrifice its own immediate interests. It's not a matter of being on suicidal crusade for some kind of perfect world, it is a matter of being on the side of good wherever possible. Russia for example has always seen that as our weakness, because it never understood the point having any policy that does not serve only the national interests of Russia. The world would be A LOT worse if Russia had won. I am saying USA and Russia, rather than NATO and Warsaw Pact or USSR because that is the reality, the rest were just pawns.
You have the convert's enthusiasm.
And you are taking what you have for granted.
For example up until about 1968 black people were still being killed for trying to vote in the South, and they're still not doing that well. If you were black, you'd be a lot better off in the Communist bloc in the 1970s.
Really, a black person would show up to vote in 1968 and federal secret police would shove them in the back of a van and take them to a secret prison, or to an execution site where they would put a bullet in the back of their head without a trial? If that is really what happened and on a massive scale all over the country, then it would perhaps be a fair comparison to what was happening in the communist block.
rich oligarchs in this country who run everything, and the working people who are trying to have a democracy instead.
Oh god, try living in the real world please. This kind of crap is not worth replying to.
Germany was also the greatest major country in the world, in the 1920s and 1930s.We still use their industrial techniques and medical discoveries. So these things can fall aparat fast.
there are a lot of reasons for the rise of Hitler in the 30s in Germany but I'm pretty sure none of them have any similarity whatsoever to the situation in the USA today.
All countries do the same things when it comes to foreign relations, especially espionage and things like that. It's a game that people in the know play behind the scenes and not even elected leaders are always privy to what's going on. It is ridiculous to say you are ashamed of the USA because it is one of the players (which it has to be).
As someone who was born in a communist country but thankfully moved early to the USA, saying that we are doing the same stuff that Communists were doing in the 70s is an insult to people who lived under those regimes of the same proportion as seriously equating a judge who gives you too high a fine for a traffic violation to Nazis slaughtering millions.
In the 70s, over 3/4 of the people in the world lived under dictatorships and today, only 40 years later, 90% of the people live in democracies. Who do you think had the greatest role to play in bringing about that enormous change for the better? Russians, or the Chinese, or the Europeans, where in the 70s one half of the countries were Communist dictatorships and even in the West at least three countries (Spain, Portugal and Greece) were Fascist dictatorships? How did it happen? Just naturally, for the first time in the history of the world, countries all over the world decided to become democracies?
It is sad that you lack a sense of proportion to realize that while the USA is not perfect, it is far from being a country you should be ashamed of, in fact it is quite obviously the greatest major country in the the world, possibly in the history of the world.
What kind of whistle blowing crusade is he on by revealing US espionage programs details to the Chinese and then seeking shelter with them? Whatever other things he may be doing, that part at least is treason.
I don't know how the discussion of governmental spying can get any more widespread? You mean, the front page story in every media outlet in the world might not get noticed, but some random guy making a font - well, that will get everybody's attention.
The elephant in the room is Islam. It is a different proposition to be opposing say a communist militia in your country and opposing an Islamist militia. People who are thought from childhood to believe that Koran is a literal word of God cannot reasonably oppose Jihadists who are fighting infidels for the glory of Islam, because that is what God clearly orders them to do! This is the power of religion. When you have people fanatical enough to torture and murder young children in front of their parents for making an innocent joke mentioning Mohammad's name (as happened the other day in Syria) it is a scary force to oppose for ordinary unarmed people. The only way forward is for the civilized world to demand secularization of the government in Islamic countries (Turkey style) and reform of Islam, which unfortunately will mean conflict with Islam for a long time.
We didn't bomb them to stop the Holocaust, we bombed them to win the war. Germans started it by bombing the crap of civilian areas all over Europe at the beginning of the war, sinking civilian ships etc etc. It was that kind of war.
Unfair to the UN and unfair to wealthy nations. If they didn't do anything at all, the poorest people in the world would be much worse off and literally millions of people would have died of starvation and disease. Helping countries with corrupt governments (almost all of Africa) or no government at all (such as Somalia) is a more difficult problem than you think and in every place where Islamic radicals operate they make that problem much more difficult.
Technically, you owe taxes even if you don't convert bitcoin into 'real' money. Barter transactions are still taxed. For example if you get paid with goods (say bitcoin, or camels) for some work, you are getting taxed on the fair market value of those goods.
Right, because there are no government agencies other than the NSA who might have made those requests. Most of those requests were made by local police departments and are related to ordinary crimes, missing persons etc and nothing to do with national security.
Slashdot is not anti-authoritarian. Majority of slashdot posters, and certainly modders are liberal, which is as authoritarian as it gets.
Comedy Central, which I'll admit has some left leanings, but in case you didn't know, has been known to roast Obama, as well
The problem with Comedy Central is not that it has obvious left leanings but that it is a political news (or rather political opinion) channel that attempts to influence public opinion as much as any other political news outlet, but without any fact checking requirements of a real news organization. You can catch, say, Fox News or MSNBC reporting a story in a blatantly biased way, even misreporting or ignoring important facts, and you can say so, and in theory their reputation should suffer. If you do the same with Jon Stewart, he will just laugh and say, hey it's just comedy, ha, ha. But it's obviously not just comedy. He is having it both ways.
Sometimes I wonder it Obama's support of NSA domestic spying is just a clever way to get Republicans to come out in favor of personal privacy.
Gee, how much kool-aid did you drink?
You are part of the problem. You are comparing an idealized version of the best part of your side (and giving them every possible benefit of the doubt and making up excuses for them) with a cartoonishly exaggerated version of the worst of the other side. Let me guess, ALL your information comes from watching and reading liberal media?
The only party in favor of personal privacy are the Libertarians and a small but growing libertarian camp within the Republican party. Mainstream Republicans and Democrats don't even consider it an issue worth thinking about.
It's too late once you already bought the thing. There should be a message on the box in big bold letters, "this device may be used to watch what you are doing in your own house" or something, like on cigarette packs. If you don't mind, sure buy it but you should have the information ahead of time.
I wouldn't say there is no value as Justices may need to have a chance to clarify something etc. It is vastly overrated though and it is one of the reasons most Justices do not want cameras in court during oral arguments. As Scalia said, if the media is willing to follow all the relevant details of a case from beginning to end and devote a large amount of time to it (such as on CSPAN for example) then cameras would be fine, but just focusing all the attention on few soundbites and back and forth between judges and lawyers during oral arguments would be entirely unrepresentative of what the court actually does.
I don't see why is this such a really, really bad idea? Yes both companies have a history of sucking but if Microsoft wants to move more into consumer electronics and have its own stores, this seems like a quick and low cost way to do it as opposed to starting from scratch.
Nobody said anything about the curriculum.
Btw, fields that operate within reality, such as sciences, economics, business etc are actually least likely to have liberal professors, it's the ones that operate in the clouds of smoke such as liberal arts courses, humanities that tend to attract them the most.
Your childish posts are not really worth replying to and I shouldn't have done so in the first place. But for what it's worth, your posts in this thread can be translated as simply stating that being liberal is right and being conservative is wrong, therefore if you are liberal you are right and if you are a conservative you are wrong. That doesn't even qualify as a logical fallacy, it is simply nonsense.
Contrary to the uninformed popular opinion, Clarence Thomas has been very active during his time on the court. He just mostly leaves questions in oral arguments to other judges, which is only a small part of what judges do. It used to be common for Justices to take that approach, but recently it stands out since the others have started to enjoy the sound of their own cleverness much more, whether it contributes to the resolution of a case or not.
You are calling him delusional but you are actually exposing your own delusions.
Liberal bias among university professors has been confirmed in too many papers to mention, I'll let you google it yourself but here are a few examples
We are talking over 90% of professors in certain fields identifying themselves as 'liberal' or 'progressive' and a similar bias in donations to the two parties.