If it weren't for the greediness of cable companies, I'd jump right onto that. I'll never forgive one for continuing to bill more 3 months after I canceled service, and dinged my credit for 7 years because I refused to pay for their billing error.
Because women are humans, not incubators. For the rest of your argument, I might back you on mandatory contraceptives. After all humans, both male and female, were designed to enjoy sex so that they would have it often as they can so punishing them for doing what comes naturally makes little sense. There may be one big stumbling block, the Catholic Church, in our way though.
No, they are Authoritarian. They have an inborn need to dictate that others must follow their beliefs. Life begins when they dictate life begins, life ends when they dictate life ends. They have no concern for people, only for doctrine. Would you believe the Catholic Church still deems pregnancy prevention a mortal sin?
If they can show what you say, the will win the suit. The best defense against slander is the truth. Sounds like, according to you, they have a slam dunk case!! If that is the case I wish them the best and hope they recover the maximum damages possible.
So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda. So noted. As I previously said, I would gladly support a law against abortion if the makers of that law would incubate the fetus and assume all costs of raising the child. No person should subject to a life of poverty just because the "State" says so.
Agreed, filing suit just publicizes the fact that their software was found lacking by reviewers. This company is toast and well deserves to be. The only logical proof they can provide against claims of their softwares ineffectiveness a demonstration of its effectiveness.
People who don't want children of course. Just as people who don't leaves on their lawn rake leaves, people who don't want fetuses in their abdomen rake fetuses. My God you are obtuse. What is it in you that makes you think you have the RIGHT to dictate what others must keep in their lawns or abdomens.
Simple, because anti-abortionist want to force women to carry children they do not want. When men can incubate children and fully suffer the consequences of doing so then men should have a say in the process. Don't you get it, forcing a woman to carry a fetus against their will is forcing them to do something they do not want to do. Donate all your free money to incubator research if you are truly motivated to allowing fetuses to become humans if that is what you truly believe. My guess is you are far more interested in dictating lives of servitude on others than you are about preserving potential lives though.
Yes, but votes that are not influenced by an influx of people with an agenda. Damn, even I am Libertarian enough to know that it isn't right to force others to follow your views.
This really is the bottom line. Abortion should be illegal only when those who oppose it are willing to both incubate and pay for all costs involved in bringing it to adulthood. Until then, they need to STFU.
Sex is a drive imposed on humans by nature, the same as most other animals. Just because you can't get any doesn't mean you should impose lifetime penalties upon others. You do understand that by forcing women to carry a fetuses that they did not wish upon themselves is akin to forcing them into slavery, right?
So you are a Conservative Libertarian, not a People Libertarian. Look man, people are where it's at. Can you imagine living a life where you own everything there is to own yet have nobody to flaunt it to?
No. The Authoritarian viewpoint would be that stupid people must be shot hit the head.
To an authoritarian there is no difference between "should" and "must".
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
And what about my belief that stupid people should be shot hit the head?
That is an Authoritarian viewpoint. A Libertarian view would be that all people are free to shoot themselves in the head.
If you say something about my freedom stopping at his nose, then I remind you that the baby's right to live stops at the aborter's saline injection, scraping blade, etc.
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
Even if I'm against, laws prohibiting abortion force those who are not to bow to my beliefs and surrender their own. I guess it is kind of like gay marriage. There is a big difference between allowing homosexuals to marry and forcing heterosexuals to enter homosexual marriage. To my mind, Conservative Libertarians fail to see this obvious distinction.
Libertarians will never come to agreement as to whether not there is a duty to ensure that ALL people are equally free. This of course allows for Authoritarians to gain and keep power simply by promising to enforce a Conservative Libertarian agenda on Social Libertarians or a Social Libertarian agenda on Conservative Libertarians. Perhaps someday we will all agree to live and let live, but I fear that day is a long, long way off.
If the Venezuelan government says a Llama is equal to one Bolivar than a Llama is equal to one Bolivar. That assumes of course the Venezuelan has enough guns to make that so.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all in the phrasing. Broadband may be 50MBS, high speed is anything over 56k.
If it weren't for the greediness of cable companies, I'd jump right onto that. I'll never forgive one for continuing to bill more 3 months after I canceled service, and dinged my credit for 7 years because I refused to pay for their billing error.
Because women are humans, not incubators. For the rest of your argument, I might back you on mandatory contraceptives. After all humans, both male and female, were designed to enjoy sex so that they would have it often as they can so punishing them for doing what comes naturally makes little sense. There may be one big stumbling block, the Catholic Church, in our way though.
No, they are Authoritarian. They have an inborn need to dictate that others must follow their beliefs. Life begins when they dictate life begins, life ends when they dictate life ends. They have no concern for people, only for doctrine. Would you believe the Catholic Church still deems pregnancy prevention a mortal sin?
If they can show what you say, the will win the suit. The best defense against slander is the truth. Sounds like, according to you, they have a slam dunk case!! If that is the case I wish them the best and hope they recover the maximum damages possible.
So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda. So noted. As I previously said, I would gladly support a law against abortion if the makers of that law would incubate the fetus and assume all costs of raising the child. No person should subject to a life of poverty just because the "State" says so.
Agreed, filing suit just publicizes the fact that their software was found lacking by reviewers. This company is toast and well deserves to be. The only logical proof they can provide against claims of their softwares ineffectiveness a demonstration of its effectiveness.
Maybe I should tweet about it to get your fired from your job.
Please do, I'm nearing retirement anyway. A couple of extra years of freedom would be most welcome.
People who don't want children of course. Just as people who don't leaves on their lawn rake leaves, people who don't want fetuses in their abdomen rake fetuses. My God you are obtuse. What is it in you that makes you think you have the RIGHT to dictate what others must keep in their lawns or abdomens.
Simple, because anti-abortionist want to force women to carry children they do not want. When men can incubate children and fully suffer the consequences of doing so then men should have a say in the process. Don't you get it, forcing a woman to carry a fetus against their will is forcing them to do something they do not want to do. Donate all your free money to incubator research if you are truly motivated to allowing fetuses to become humans if that is what you truly believe. My guess is you are far more interested in dictating lives of servitude on others than you are about preserving potential lives though.
Yes, but votes that are not influenced by an influx of people with an agenda. Damn, even I am Libertarian enough to know that it isn't right to force others to follow your views.
This really is the bottom line. Abortion should be illegal only when those who oppose it are willing to both incubate and pay for all costs involved in bringing it to adulthood. Until then, they need to STFU.
Sex is a drive imposed on humans by nature, the same as most other animals. Just because you can't get any doesn't mean you should impose lifetime penalties upon others. You do understand that by forcing women to carry a fetuses that they did not wish upon themselves is akin to forcing them into slavery, right?
So you are a Conservative Libertarian, not a People Libertarian. Look man, people are where it's at. Can you imagine living a life where you own everything there is to own yet have nobody to flaunt it to?
...their views on everyone they can. What else would you expect authoritarian dictators to do?
My concern is that to Conservative Libertarians it is "Live By My Rules Or Die".
No. The Authoritarian viewpoint would be that stupid people must be shot hit the head.
To an authoritarian there is no difference between "should" and "must".
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
And what about my belief that stupid people should be shot hit the head?
That is an Authoritarian viewpoint. A Libertarian view would be that all people are free to shoot themselves in the head.
If you say something about my freedom stopping at his nose, then I remind you that the baby's right to live stops at the aborter's saline injection, scraping blade, etc.
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
As long as the emigration isn't forced the vast majority of Social Libertarians would back your tax and stay put.
Even if I'm against, laws prohibiting abortion force those who are not to bow to my beliefs and surrender their own. I guess it is kind of like gay marriage. There is a big difference between allowing homosexuals to marry and forcing heterosexuals to enter homosexual marriage. To my mind, Conservative Libertarians fail to see this obvious distinction.
Libertarians will never come to agreement as to whether not there is a duty to ensure that ALL people are equally free. This of course allows for Authoritarians to gain and keep power simply by promising to enforce a Conservative Libertarian agenda on Social Libertarians or a Social Libertarian agenda on Conservative Libertarians. Perhaps someday we will all agree to live and let live, but I fear that day is a long, long way off.
High wages would enable people to spend more. Here in the US businesses are doing their best to keep them low though.
I can make "X" dollars flipping burgers, or I can make "XX" dollars committing crimes. Hard choices here.
If the Venezuelan government says a Llama is equal to one Bolivar than a Llama is equal to one Bolivar. That assumes of course the Venezuelan has enough guns to make that so.
Ahh, but spending is what keeps an economy moving.