In short, Nader is an idiot. The two parties, in fact, are not at all the same and if one doesn't see that after eight years of the freedom-fighter crowd, said person is a fool. You think we'd be in Iraq right now if the other guy won 8 years ago?
They are pretty close to the same... compared to Nader. That's because he and the Green Party are so so far out in left field that everything else looks moderate in comparison. You want real change, bring the Green Party to power. Unfortunately, that's not change I want to believe in.
Bush could only spend the money that the Congress authorized. It's nice to nail Bush to a cross, but it's not solely the President's fault when spending gets out of hand.
Except that Edward Jay Epstein is wrong when he says that no witnesses reported the hijackers having box cutters.
The 9-11 Commission Report states: "At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft."
In fact, Epstein later says that Barbara Olson indeed did call her husband and tell him that the terrorists had knives and box-cutters.
He also argues that since we've not found the remains of plastic knives and box cutters in the rubble (and how would we know that those weren't in the building and not the plane?) and that somehow casts doubt that the terrorists had them. Then he mentions how they may have had guns and bombs, but we didn't find the remains of those either, and yet the earlier doubts don't apply in that situation?
There's not much of a description of Hell in the New Testament. We can thank Dante and Milton for most of our modern conceptions of what a non-saved afterlife is like.
Standard practice though: get a nice sounding name (academic freedom / focus on the family et al.) because what you're actually up to is pretty bloody odious.
So many people are students of Orwell these days. The double-speak is beautiful.
From what I have learned in the US College system, teachers have to use only questions that have been asked in the book (God forbid students think for themselves).
Haha, not at UC Davis, at least.
As it usually is, this is something that is entirely up to the discretion of the teacher.
Orson Scott Card is Mormon, and the LDS church was the biggest sponsor of Proposition 8 to outlaw gay marriage. He's written a few columns in the Mormon Times, and an exact quote from one is: '"Gay marriage" is not bad because God forbids it. God forbids it because it is harmful for us, as a society and as individuals.'
These days the male/female-only marriage argument carefully skirts around the religious definition, instead calling it 'traditional.' IE, marriage is a tradition, and that tradition must not change, at least not in a gay way.
I think the problem is with the word "marriage". To me and many others, marriage is a religious thing. Since religion has no place in government, I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether! I would be perfectly happy getting married by my pastor and having the government recognize my marriage as a "civil union". Civil unions can be between any two people who are willing to share in the responsibility of what we now call marriage.
I would love that too! Unfortunately, law after law in various states are written with the specific word "marriage" instead of civil union, and the solution isn't as easy as a pattern replacement. It's easier to change what the state considers marriage than it is to eliminate marriage from the state.
What I don't understand is how this comes up at all. I'm straight, too, but I don't discuss my sex life with coworkers. It's just not their business. So, how are they being discriminated against unless they are bringing very personal and non-work-related matters to the office? Do homosexual people want to be able to discuss their intimate sex lives at work without repercussions? Because straight people cannot do that without fear of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Seems to me that equal, non-discriminatory treatment would mean that everyone leaves sexual, non-business matters at the door when they walk into the office. I suppose you can't have political movements and protests and large organizations and campaigns and controversy if it were done this way, and we act like we need those things for their own sake sometimes, so perhaps that's too simple?
You are equating "gay marriage" with a sexual fetish, which is not what is at stake here at all, no more than traditional marriage is some strange sexual practice that no one talks about.
And here's a short summary opinion piece on how marriages are more protected in law than civil unions: Link here
That's why I got into the habit of putting each and every sed expression on the command line in single quotes, whether it needs it or not. Good habit to get into.
The more I read Acts of Gord, the more I realize that Gord really isn't all that bright. He makes terrible black-white assumptions in nearly every revenge fantasy he brings up.
It was reasonably funny in Married with Children (or other sitcoms, take your pick). Not-so-much when it tries to pass itself off as real events.
In the case of point #2, of course she didn't recommend anything but Outlook Express or Webmail -- once you recommend something, people are going to feel you are obligated to support it. They're not going to recommend the installation of anything that won't be understood or supported by all the tech support staff.
Slashdot Mirror
In short, Nader is an idiot. The two parties, in fact, are not at all the same and if one doesn't see that after eight years of the freedom-fighter crowd, said person is a fool. You think we'd be in Iraq right now if the other guy won 8 years ago?
They are pretty close to the same... compared to Nader. That's because he and the Green Party are so so far out in left field that everything else looks moderate in comparison. You want real change, bring the Green Party to power. Unfortunately, that's not change I want to believe in.
Bush could only spend the money that the Congress authorized. It's nice to nail Bush to a cross, but it's not solely the President's fault when spending gets out of hand.
well lets just say always bet on black... ..to be the first to die? This is the movie industry we're talking about here.
Except that Edward Jay Epstein is wrong when he says that no witnesses reported the hijackers having box cutters.
The 9-11 Commission Report states: "At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft."
In fact, Epstein later says that Barbara Olson indeed did call her husband and tell him that the terrorists had knives and box-cutters.
He also argues that since we've not found the remains of plastic knives and box cutters in the rubble (and how would we know that those weren't in the building and not the plane?) and that somehow casts doubt that the terrorists had them. Then he mentions how they may have had guns and bombs, but we didn't find the remains of those either, and yet the earlier doubts don't apply in that situation?
Mods: please use your mod-points to mod up good articles. Save the Flamepoint mods for the truly terrible.
There's not much of a description of Hell in the New Testament. We can thank Dante and Milton for most of our modern conceptions of what a non-saved afterlife is like.
Paris Hilton would be celibate in hell?
Well at least it's not all bad.
Standard practice though: get a nice sounding name (academic freedom / focus on the family et al.) because what you're actually up to is pretty bloody odious.
So many people are students of Orwell these days. The double-speak is beautiful.
Whoa! Just where do you live where a student's time is estimated to be worth $20/hr?
From what I have learned in the US College system, teachers have to use only questions that have been asked in the book (God forbid students think for themselves).
Haha, not at UC Davis, at least.
As it usually is, this is something that is entirely up to the discretion of the teacher.
"My taxes pay your salary" is something that is very often heard around many governmental branches and is pretty much universally ignored.
When some leaves from your neighbor's tree fall into your yard, do you immediately file a lawsuit or do you actually try to work with him/her first?
Orson Scott Card is Mormon, and the LDS church was the biggest sponsor of Proposition 8 to outlaw gay marriage. He's written a few columns in the Mormon Times, and an exact quote from one is: '"Gay marriage" is not bad because God forbids it. God forbids it because it is harmful for us, as a society and as individuals.'
Reference
These days the male/female-only marriage argument carefully skirts around the religious definition, instead calling it 'traditional.' IE, marriage is a tradition, and that tradition must not change, at least not in a gay way.
I think the problem is with the word "marriage". To me and many others, marriage is a religious thing. Since religion has no place in government, I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether! I would be perfectly happy getting married by my pastor and having the government recognize my marriage as a "civil union". Civil unions can be between any two people who are willing to share in the responsibility of what we now call marriage.
I would love that too! Unfortunately, law after law in various states are written with the specific word "marriage" instead of civil union, and the solution isn't as easy as a pattern replacement. It's easier to change what the state considers marriage than it is to eliminate marriage from the state.
What I don't understand is how this comes up at all. I'm straight, too, but I don't discuss my sex life with coworkers. It's just not their business. So, how are they being discriminated against unless they are bringing very personal and non-work-related matters to the office? Do homosexual people want to be able to discuss their intimate sex lives at work without repercussions? Because straight people cannot do that without fear of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Seems to me that equal, non-discriminatory treatment would mean that everyone leaves sexual, non-business matters at the door when they walk into the office. I suppose you can't have political movements and protests and large organizations and campaigns and controversy if it were done this way, and we act like we need those things for their own sake sometimes, so perhaps that's too simple?
You are equating "gay marriage" with a sexual fetish, which is not what is at stake here at all, no more than traditional marriage is some strange sexual practice that no one talks about.
And here's a short summary opinion piece on how marriages are more protected in law than civil unions: Link here
Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays!! ... On a Friday.
That's why I got into the habit of putting each and every sed expression on the command line in single quotes, whether it needs it or not. Good habit to get into.
The more I read Acts of Gord, the more I realize that Gord really isn't all that bright. He makes terrible black-white assumptions in nearly every revenge fantasy he brings up.
It was reasonably funny in Married with Children (or other sitcoms, take your pick). Not-so-much when it tries to pass itself off as real events.
Perhaps an obvious answer here is that the world isn't as idiotic as you thought it was in the first place?
I think it means overall brilliance is simply not required to survive. It's more a qualifier of how far or fast you advance and improve.
In the case of point #2, of course she didn't recommend anything but Outlook Express or Webmail -- once you recommend something, people are going to feel you are obligated to support it. They're not going to recommend the installation of anything that won't be understood or supported by all the tech support staff.
The majority of people could be above-average drivers is the bad drivers are -so- bad that they throw off the average.
Will the real smartest person on Slashdot please stand up?
Ugg. The problems with the Somalis are far worse than merely not being "born into relative privilege."
I nominate the parent for "Depressingly True Comment of the Day."