It's hard for them to see us as stakeholders in the society whose rules they are trying to manipulate As opposed to consumers that they are trying to sell as products.
I have altered your comment to more accurately reflect the situation.
But it's harmful to marriages, sinful to all and not what God wants for you. This isn't about civil liberties - if you must, go watch, I'm not looking to stop you, but I do want you to know that Jesus loves you and has better things in mind for you.
I don't know about all of those faith-based assertions, but there is actual, factual evidence that sexual assault rates decrease when porn is freely available. But don't take my word for it.
Here's a fun game to play. Watch a "blockbuster" movie made in the last 5-10 years. Now, count how many brand name products are on the screen over the course of the film.
A teachable moment is a direct message saying you used the wrong one.
A look at me post longer than the post you're correcting is simply attention seeking.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but my intention was to make it visible to others as well. So yes, attention-seeking, but probably not in the way you mean.
In Huntsville, on Knology, is more expensive to only have internet service than it is to have basic cable + internet. Yay bundling,
This is true in the Boston area as well (Comcast). I haven't taken my TV out of the closet since they forced us to have a digital box on every TV (and then charge us for the privilege in rental fees). My housemate is computer illiterate so we couldn't get rid of it anyway, but if I had my choice I'd never give those bastards another red cent. Netflix, (adblocked)Hulu, (adblocked)comedy central has good free streaming, and whatever I can't find there I watch with torrents.
I'm done with TV ads. Done. DONE. Try it for a week and then go back to commercialled shows. Watch your limbic system go insane.
Show me a single use of the "word" macaca prior to that incident.
I asked you to justify your claim that the incident in question was an "attempt to create racial animosity where none exists", in your words. Now you're saying you can't say for sure that it was NOT racially motivated.
I can understand why someone might not understand why the remarks of George Allen were xenophobic and racist, and I don't think he knew he was using a slur (which it turns out, it really is - see: wikipedia, macaca). See, he's making the non-white guy the "other", pointing him out, giving him a silly "unamerican" nickname, and making his supporters laugh at the guy. And that's the fine point right there - because they all laughed! Gosh, how funny - look, that guy is different than me!
It's textbook modern racism. If you have any intellectual integrity at all, I hope you give this serious consideration instead of writing it off again. If not, please don't waste both of our time by replying.
I propose it be illegal to maim, kill, torture, rape, smile at, incinerate, smash or dismember a baby.
We're going to have to make some changes to get it past both houses. You aren't thinking about the undertaker industry for example, and will have to take out "incinerate".
I don't suspect you watch much Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews, and the like... because their rhetoric is just as silly as "reload"... and often times bordering on the ludicrous to even think about it.
I think this was supposed to be some kind of 'gotcha', but you're right - I don't watch Mathews or O'Donnell for exactly the reasons you cite. I view the entire 24 hour news industry with contempt. I do listen to a lot of NPR, but that reporting tends to have less corporate bias than the other available broadcasts.
I hold both sides to the same standard. I am not a moderate, but I'm not delusional into believing we're in a two-party system anymore. It's a corporatist vision for our country, and donkey or elephant will continue to mold that dream until we're all under someone's iron boot.
Splitting them up based on "reload" or whatever else might offend you is pointless and shows you buy into the ruse... I suspect you're better equipped than that, though.
Let me be clear, because you're straw-manning me a little. I'm not "offended" by the violent rhetoric of the right, I just think it's irresponsible. If you truly held "both sides" (whatever that means) to the same standard, you would be a tougher critic of the Republicans because they behave worse. Equal coverage isn't equal at all when you pretend one group's actions are equivalent to another's when they are demonstrably not.
At the end of the day, you and I agree on about 85-90% of these issues. I am also not a moderate, but a lefty whacko - but I believe that this country only has a chance if people like you and I stop fighting each other over this nonsense.
It looks like they're saying that it's only illegal if you intend to offend, irritate, annoy, etc... So it looks like I'd have to prove that you're lying when you say that you didn't mean any offense by calling my Mama fat.
Sounds like one of those laws that nobody even tries to enforce.
Except on racial minorities when you have nothing else to get them on, but you don't like the way they walk.
Striking down this law, which was passed by a strong majority, would be an unprecedented and blatant example of judicial activism by an unelected group of people.
I have a phone call from Little Rock. Would you like to take it now, or do you want to keep your fingers in your ears for a little longer?
.. but democrats/liberals never use obscene language or get loud or violent when arguing their side? Be serious. Things are heated on both sides of the aisle.
Well none of them have shot any Republican candidates yet. And I haven't seen any stories about Dems calling for their constituents to "reload", or other statements that border on inciting violence.
Sometimes giving "both sides" a fair hearing isn't reasonable, or even appropriate.
Dirty words? Okay, I can see that. What about discussing birth control? Taking the Lord's name in vain? That one is certainly profane.
That's bad enough, but... am I misreading this, or are they trying to punish "intent to annoy"? Am I crazy, or is that thought crime? Intent to annoy seems very different from intent to murder.
There appear to be very few laws which will, in practice, protect us from the TSA/DHS/VIPR. I think when Paul Ryan talks about closing loopholes, he's referring to those.
Slashdot Mirror
Chris Dodd makes me ashamed to be a life-long Connecticut Resident.
Have you stood in downtown Hartford after business hours recently? Dodd's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's hard for them to see us as stakeholders in the society whose rules they are trying to manipulate
As opposed to consumers that they are trying to sell as products.
I have altered your comment to more accurately reflect the situation.
Pray I do not alter it further.
But it's harmful to marriages, sinful to all and not what God wants for you. This isn't about civil liberties - if you must, go watch, I'm not looking to stop you, but I do want you to know that Jesus loves you and has better things in mind for you.
I don't know about all of those faith-based assertions, but there is actual, factual evidence that sexual assault rates decrease when porn is freely available. But don't take my word for it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html
You make an interesting leap of logic yourself. You assume people who torrent TV shows think they have value.
Let me put it another way: true quality programing is not the same thing as HIGH-BUDGET programming.
or adds will be injected into the movies
Here's a fun game to play. Watch a "blockbuster" movie made in the last 5-10 years. Now, count how many brand name products are on the screen over the course of the film.
If it was a drinking game, it would kill you.
thedailyshow.com
Full episodes, posted early in the morning the day after broadcast, with extended interviews already spliced into the stream.
It's a Good Thing.
A teachable moment is a direct message saying you used the wrong one.
A look at me post longer than the post you're correcting is simply attention seeking.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but my intention was to make it visible to others as well. So yes, attention-seeking, but probably not in the way you mean.
In Huntsville, on Knology, is more expensive to only have internet service than it is to have basic cable + internet. Yay bundling,
This is true in the Boston area as well (Comcast). I haven't taken my TV out of the closet since they forced us to have a digital box on every TV (and then charge us for the privilege in rental fees). My housemate is computer illiterate so we couldn't get rid of it anyway, but if I had my choice I'd never give those bastards another red cent. Netflix, (adblocked)Hulu, (adblocked)comedy central has good free streaming, and whatever I can't find there I watch with torrents.
I'm done with TV ads. Done. DONE. Try it for a week and then go back to commercialled shows. Watch your limbic system go insane.
Sorry about your low self esteem.
It was a teachable moment, not an insult. Sounds like you're projecting a little my friend.
You want me to prove a negative?
Show me a single use of the "word" macaca prior to that incident.
I asked you to justify your claim that the incident in question was an "attempt to create racial animosity where none exists", in your words. Now you're saying you can't say for sure that it was NOT racially motivated.
I can understand why someone might not understand why the remarks of George Allen were xenophobic and racist, and I don't think he knew he was using a slur (which it turns out, it really is - see: wikipedia, macaca). See, he's making the non-white guy the "other", pointing him out, giving him a silly "unamerican" nickname, and making his supporters laugh at the guy. And that's the fine point right there - because they all laughed! Gosh, how funny - look, that guy is different than me!
It's textbook modern racism. If you have any intellectual integrity at all, I hope you give this serious consideration instead of writing it off again. If not, please don't waste both of our time by replying.
Justify your claim that the macaca incident was not a poster child example of the thinly-veiled racism and xenophobia that permeates our society.
Is any Arizona politician capable of any logical thought at all?
If you reexamine your question, you'll find the answer is already contained therein.
I propose it be illegal to maim, kill, torture, rape, smile at, incinerate, smash or dismember a baby.
We're going to have to make some changes to get it past both houses. You aren't thinking about the undertaker industry for example, and will have to take out "incinerate".
Unless you hate jobs. And freedom.
9/11?
Its.
Think of it like this: leaving out the apostrophe is unusual. A genderless subject possessing something is pretty unusual too. They go together.
"It's [it is] a coffeemaker! It's [it has] got a carafe! Its carafe is too small."
And THAT'S one to grow on!
I don't suspect you watch much Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews, and the like... because their rhetoric is just as silly as "reload"... and often times bordering on the ludicrous to even think about it.
I think this was supposed to be some kind of 'gotcha', but you're right - I don't watch Mathews or O'Donnell for exactly the reasons you cite. I view the entire 24 hour news industry with contempt. I do listen to a lot of NPR, but that reporting tends to have less corporate bias than the other available broadcasts.
I hold both sides to the same standard. I am not a moderate, but I'm not delusional into believing we're in a two-party system anymore. It's a corporatist vision for our country, and donkey or elephant will continue to mold that dream until we're all under someone's iron boot.
Splitting them up based on "reload" or whatever else might offend you is pointless and shows you buy into the ruse... I suspect you're better equipped than that, though.
Let me be clear, because you're straw-manning me a little. I'm not "offended" by the violent rhetoric of the right, I just think it's irresponsible. If you truly held "both sides" (whatever that means) to the same standard, you would be a tougher critic of the Republicans because they behave worse. Equal coverage isn't equal at all when you pretend one group's actions are equivalent to another's when they are demonstrably not.
At the end of the day, you and I agree on about 85-90% of these issues. I am also not a moderate, but a lefty whacko - but I believe that this country only has a chance if people like you and I stop fighting each other over this nonsense.
As long as it doesn't effect corporate profits, it's constitutional!
And compulsory.
It looks like they're saying that it's only illegal if you intend to offend, irritate, annoy, etc... So it looks like I'd have to prove that you're lying when you say that you didn't mean any offense by calling my Mama fat.
Sounds like one of those laws that nobody even tries to enforce.
Except on racial minorities when you have nothing else to get them on, but you don't like the way they walk.
Striking down this law, which was passed by a strong majority, would be an unprecedented and blatant example of judicial activism by an unelected group of people.
I have a phone call from Little Rock. Would you like to take it now, or do you want to keep your fingers in your ears for a little longer?
I am always amazed at how the Republicans want less gov and less laws. Then turn around and try to shove "THEIR" laws on us.
- Abortion illegal
- Same sex marriage illegal
- Trolling (on the INet not bars) illegal
- Porn illegal
What the Fuck is up with them.
Isolation does strange things to a person, but it really does a fucking number on groups of people. Anyway, that's my best guess.
"Mexican American studies "
Could also be accurately decribed as the
"Mexicans should hate Americans studies "
Just sayin.
Wow, I bet the African American Studies students we super pissed off when their classes were also canceled, since they clearly also violate this law.
Except their classes were not canceled.
Because this law is about white people who hate and target Mexicans, not the other way around.
Just sayin.
.. but democrats/liberals never use obscene language or get loud or violent when arguing their side? Be serious. Things are heated on both sides of the aisle.
Well none of them have shot any Republican candidates yet. And I haven't seen any stories about Dems calling for their constituents to "reload", or other statements that border on inciting violence.
Sometimes giving "both sides" a fair hearing isn't reasonable, or even appropriate.
So when the Bible (or) thumper tells me I will suffer eternal torment for not doing what an imaginary man tells me?
Is that covered by trolling?
No, but making fun of his sky daddy is probably considered profane - so watch your back.
Consider what "obscenity" might mean in AZ.
Dirty words? Okay, I can see that. What about discussing birth control? Taking the Lord's name in vain? That one is certainly profane.
That's bad enough, but ... am I misreading this, or are they trying to punish "intent to annoy"? Am I crazy, or is that thought crime? Intent to annoy seems very different from intent to murder.
There appear to be very few laws which will, in practice, protect us from the TSA/DHS/VIPR. I think when Paul Ryan talks about closing loopholes, he's referring to those.
As a Texan, I'd just as soon you all stay the fuck away.
The feeling is deeply mutual.
Apropos of nothing, what do you think of the name "North Mexico"?