And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.
I would be more content if the people who wanted to force others to believe what they believe at the end of a rifle or sword were singled out. Peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the problem.
The United States is a theocracy that/has/ nuclear weapons, and/regularly/ annihilates foreign countries. Iraq was destroyed on a whim, albeit without nukes.
See: The last fifty years of the United States engaging in constant, unending international warfare, against continually new enemies, without cause or justification.
Now who looks more dangerous?
You, sir, are either engaging in hyperbole or you do not know what a theocracy is.
The US has engaged in far too many military adventures around the planet for the last 60 years, but for all of its negative qualities, we have also come to the aid of the defenseless more than anyone else too.
Yeah, a country run by a theocracy that has announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors and is busy getting nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong?
In my country, "faggot" is not a slur. Neither is "gringo." It's just what white people are called. "Nigger" isn't either, because black people call themselves that willingly.
White people here will most likely laugh at you for calling them "gringo", but call the wrong gay man a "faggot" or the wrong black man "nigger" and you'll find yourself having a very unpleasant day.
You must be American, because only Americans are so hyper-sensitive to what things are called.
Of course, I'm an American. Though we still have a few throwbacks in our midst, for the most part we eschew such small-minded bigotry.
Just so you know, the intent of bias intimidation laws are to give the ability to prosecute for crimes that a perpetrator applies to a large group of people on top of the crime committed. For example, if you place a burning cross in your neighbor's yard, it's a slight charge of destruction of private property which is nothing more than a fine. Bias intimidation is for the fact that the burning cross was meant to intimidate and harm a whole group of people, on top of the slight property harm.
Bias intimidation laws, or hate crimes, are now incorrectly thought to be "any crime against a minority are even worse than a regular crime". That is not the intent. If it is used in such a way it is incorrect.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live burning a cross on someone's yard is a felony, we call it arson.
(d) Reckless burning or exploding.--A person commits a
felony of the third degree if he intentionally starts a fire or
causes an explosion, or if he aids, counsels, pays or agrees to
pay another to cause a fire or explosion, whether on his own
property or on that of another, and thereby recklessly:
(1) places an uninhabited building or unoccupied
structure of another in danger of damage or destruction; or
(2) places any personal property of another having a
value that exceeds $5,000 or if the property is an
automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-
propelled vehicle in danger of damage or destruction.
Burn a cross on the wrong yard in this state and you find yourself in serious danger of getting shot by the homeowner.
You, sir, just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Your first point is absolutely correct. If the circumstances had been reversed, this would be a non-issue.
As a member of a minority myself, I've always felt that if someone ever assaulted or murdered me, what's more important is that I was assaulted or murdered not the reason why the asshole did it.
Punish the offender under regular laws, there is no point in this kind of legislation other than the stack the deck in favor of the prosecution.
Look at the last thirty years, when you have a Democratic white house, abortions go down. When you have a Republican white house, they go up.
Except, of course, that they don't.
I understand why you repeated this lie, it makes it sound like your side is the reasonable one in the debate. Well, it's not and the figure is untrue.
Look here. The claim was fact checked and debunked years ago.
Look here. Abortions peaked under the Reagan administration. They fell almost continuously through the Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations. At the end of GWs presidency, abortions had fallen to their lowest level since 1974. This isn't politics, it's fact.
Let's forget that for approximately six years of Bush's presidency, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and the White House, and didn't do a darn about abortion.
Except re-institute the Mexico City policy and implement policies that reduced abortion to 1970s levels. You forget the abortion was placed into legal limbo by the third branch of government, the SCOTUS never explicitly made abortion legal. The SCOTUS held that the right to privacy trumped the states' rights to legislate abortion during the first trimester. In order to eliminate Roe v. Wade, what would be needed is for the SCOTUS to revisit the case and rule differently or a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the fact that the Republicans controlled the Executive and Legislative branches of government, they didn't have a 2/3 majority needed to amend the Constitution.
Anyone know a nice pro-science, individual rights, fiscally responsible, small government oriented party out there? It would also be nice if they could also ignore gay marriage, contraception, abortion both pro or con, and also just about every other distracting hot button issue out there. It would be nice if they simply had a government that worried about balancing a budget for a change.
See: Clinton, Bill 1992-2000
You must have missed this, so I'll show it to you again.
It would also be nice if they could also ignore gay marriage, contraception, abortion both pro or con, and also just about every other distracting hot button issue out there.
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act that kept the federal government from recognizing same sex "marriages", regardless of where they were granted. Bill Clinton reversed the Mexico City policy that prevented US funds from going to institutions abroad the advocated or performed abortions. Bill Clinton advocated for and signed a symbolic and largely ineffective semi-automatic firearm ban. In case you hadn't noticed, in the US, gun rights is a hot button issue.
If you're having problems with the kind of men that you're meeting, might I suggest that you start looking to meet different kinds of men?
I'm not meeting them, the discussion was about what kind of messages I -- and everyone I know of -- keep getting.
Unfortunately, that's how meeting is done in online situations. Some men take the position that women are going to get so many responses that they need to stand out and in doing so, take it too fast or too far.
That tells me that you need to try dating black dudes. The whole plus-sized thing is less of a problem there.
That sounds terribly rasistic.
Sorry. I was making a joke. Sometimes it's easy to forget that it's hard to pick that up in comments. I'm a black dude, I meant no offense.
Well gee, OF COURSE you get jaded after a while when you keep getting stupid crap like that and then you sort of get accustomed to the idea that more-or-less all guys are like that.
If you're having problems with the kind of men that you're meeting, might I suggest that you start looking to meet different kinds of men?
As an aside, me being nerdy, only wanting to stay at home playing games together or separately, watching movies/anime, not liking shopping or going to bars, and being just generally a lazy, fat f*ck I don't really seem to be what people are looking for anyways...;)
That tells me that you need to try dating black dudes. The whole plus-sized thing is less of a problem there.
It would seem that one can only do so much. Either you can pour your heart and soul into your work or you can put that effort into playing the game. It's easy to get drawn into playing the game. IMHO, All too often, the people at the University who have decision making authority are game players and don't see the value in honest pure research. It's a downward spiral. More game-playing, less work.
You really think that an organized military and police force can be stopped by citizens (including grandma) with their.38 S&W?
French Resistance did quite a bit of covert work against the SS with single shot Liberator pistols.
Where do you get the idea that the armies will face each other on a mountain-top like in The Patriot? To control an area, you need boots on the ground. Those boots are on the feet of men who are extremely vulnerable to bullets.
A military unit from elsewhere won't know the terrain like locals. Locals will know good places to hide and operate from. Locals will already know good places to set up ambushes. People fighting for their homes, families and neighbors will be a lot more invested than someone fighting for a paycheck.
No. I wrote what I meant. Perhaps I need to explain more. They need a pool of questions that is perhaps 4x or 5x as large as the exam and produce each test randomly. Do you need me to explain why for this too?
Don't forget the fight against reproductive freedom.
Don't use euphemisms. You mean abortion, so say abortion. The fight is against abortion. Catholics (officially) don't believe in contraception, but they're not trying to ban it. No one is trying to implement compulsory insemination. Your problem is that it's harder to wrap yourself in the cloak of righteous indignation over abortion.
And our unwavering support of Israel despite well documented war crimes.
This isn't because of Christianity, it's because of the ridiculous amount of money that AIPAC has at its disposal.
I agree entirely. I'd even add one more constituency of the Democrats. Underclass whites. I'm talking about the people who are working minimum wage part time jobs as careers.
After losing the Civil War, the Dems have voted against every Civil Rights Bill that has come up.
Right, so the party of "secret racists" nominated and elected a black president.
There's nothing secret about it. They are the party of racists. They nominated Obama because just like everyone else, they were tired of the Clinton circus.
Thanks for the history lesson but I was talking primarily about Democratic voters, not politicians.
Who in the fuck do you think is voting for those southern Democrats? DEMOCRATS!
Ever since then the GOP has owned the South.
Please turn off the Daily Show. Have you ever heard of a Bluedog Democrat? THEY own the south. Two of our last three Democrat Presidents were southern governors. Basically, you're just making things up and repeating things you heard other people say.
I know this canard is popular among the modern political left, but it's bunk. Robert Byrd was a Democrat until the day he died. Al Gore Sr. Voted against the civil rights acts.
I recently completed my M.S. and we had one professor in particular who was all about superfluous cites. Basically, if you need to pass his class, you need to meet his ridiculous requirements.
The bodies that come up with the certifications say that they don't repeat questions. Well, if that were true, the Doctors couldn't come up with study guides by recalling questions.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.
I would be more content if the people who wanted to force others to believe what they believe at the end of a rifle or sword were singled out. Peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the problem.
LK
The United States is a theocracy that /has/ nuclear weapons, and /regularly/ annihilates foreign countries. Iraq was destroyed on a whim, albeit without nukes.
See: The last fifty years of the United States engaging in constant, unending international warfare, against continually new enemies, without cause or justification.
Now who looks more dangerous?
You, sir, are either engaging in hyperbole or you do not know what a theocracy is.
The US has engaged in far too many military adventures around the planet for the last 60 years, but for all of its negative qualities, we have also come to the aid of the defenseless more than anyone else too.
LK
Yeah, a country run by a theocracy that has announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors and is busy getting nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, but what does Israel have to do with this?
LK
What slur? Gay people are called faggots.
Not by anyone with any measure of class.
In my country, "faggot" is not a slur. Neither is "gringo." It's just what white people are called. "Nigger" isn't either, because black people call themselves that willingly.
White people here will most likely laugh at you for calling them "gringo", but call the wrong gay man a "faggot" or the wrong black man "nigger" and you'll find yourself having a very unpleasant day.
You must be American, because only Americans are so hyper-sensitive to what things are called.
Of course, I'm an American. Though we still have a few throwbacks in our midst, for the most part we eschew such small-minded bigotry.
LK
Just so you know, the intent of bias intimidation laws are to give the ability to prosecute for crimes that a perpetrator applies to a large group of people on top of the crime committed. For example, if you place a burning cross in your neighbor's yard, it's a slight charge of destruction of private property which is nothing more than a fine. Bias intimidation is for the fact that the burning cross was meant to intimidate and harm a whole group of people, on top of the slight property harm.
Bias intimidation laws, or hate crimes, are now incorrectly thought to be "any crime against a minority are even worse than a regular crime". That is not the intent. If it is used in such a way it is incorrect.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live burning a cross on someone's yard is a felony, we call it arson.
felony of the third degree if he intentionally starts a fire or
causes an explosion, or if he aids, counsels, pays or agrees to
pay another to cause a fire or explosion, whether on his own
property or on that of another, and thereby recklessly:
(1) places an uninhabited building or unoccupied
structure of another in danger of damage or destruction; or
(2) places any personal property of another having a
value that exceeds $5,000 or if the property is an
automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-
propelled vehicle in danger of damage or destruction.
Burn a cross on the wrong yard in this state and you find yourself in serious danger of getting shot by the homeowner.
LK
You, sir, just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Your first point is absolutely correct. If the circumstances had been reversed, this would be a non-issue.
Your use of the slur undermines your credibility.
LK
As a member of a minority myself, I've always felt that if someone ever assaulted or murdered me, what's more important is that I was assaulted or murdered not the reason why the asshole did it.
Punish the offender under regular laws, there is no point in this kind of legislation other than the stack the deck in favor of the prosecution.
LK
Look at the last thirty years, when you have a Democratic white house, abortions go down. When you have a Republican white house, they go up.
Except, of course, that they don't.
I understand why you repeated this lie, it makes it sound like your side is the reasonable one in the debate. Well, it's not and the figure is untrue.
Look here. The claim was fact checked and debunked years ago.
Look here. Abortions peaked under the Reagan administration. They fell almost continuously through the Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations. At the end of GWs presidency, abortions had fallen to their lowest level since 1974. This isn't politics, it's fact.
Let's forget that for approximately six years of Bush's presidency, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and the White House, and didn't do a darn about abortion.
Except re-institute the Mexico City policy and implement policies that reduced abortion to 1970s levels. You forget the abortion was placed into legal limbo by the third branch of government, the SCOTUS never explicitly made abortion legal. The SCOTUS held that the right to privacy trumped the states' rights to legislate abortion during the first trimester. In order to eliminate Roe v. Wade, what would be needed is for the SCOTUS to revisit the case and rule differently or a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the fact that the Republicans controlled the Executive and Legislative branches of government, they didn't have a 2/3 majority needed to amend the Constitution.
LK
Anyone know a nice pro-science, individual rights, fiscally responsible, small government oriented party out there? It would also be nice if they could also ignore gay marriage, contraception, abortion both pro or con, and also just about every other distracting hot button issue out there. It would be nice if they simply had a government that worried about balancing a budget for a change.
See: Clinton, Bill 1992-2000
You must have missed this, so I'll show it to you again.
It would also be nice if they could also ignore gay marriage, contraception, abortion both pro or con, and also just about every other distracting hot button issue out there.
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act that kept the federal government from recognizing same sex "marriages", regardless of where they were granted.
Bill Clinton reversed the Mexico City policy that prevented US funds from going to institutions abroad the advocated or performed abortions.
Bill Clinton advocated for and signed a symbolic and largely ineffective semi-automatic firearm ban. In case you hadn't noticed, in the US, gun rights is a hot button issue.
LK
Even more so if the ammo is explosive and/or fragmenting.
I'd suggest that armor piercing would be better yet. Punch one hole through the hull and let their artificial atmosphere do the work for you.
LK
Much?? We've been biased against newbs since the 90s, were you born yesterday or something?
Sacrificing my mods for this, but like you really remember the 90s Jr.
LK
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive.
Be well.
LK
If you're having problems with the kind of men that you're meeting, might I suggest that you start looking to meet different kinds of men?
I'm not meeting them, the discussion was about what kind of messages I -- and everyone I know of -- keep getting.
Unfortunately, that's how meeting is done in online situations. Some men take the position that women are going to get so many responses that they need to stand out and in doing so, take it too fast or too far.
That tells me that you need to try dating black dudes. The whole plus-sized thing is less of a problem there.
That sounds terribly rasistic.
Sorry. I was making a joke. Sometimes it's easy to forget that it's hard to pick that up in comments. I'm a black dude, I meant no offense.
LK
Well gee, OF COURSE you get jaded after a while when you keep getting stupid crap like that and then you sort of get accustomed to the idea that more-or-less all guys are like that.
If you're having problems with the kind of men that you're meeting, might I suggest that you start looking to meet different kinds of men?
As an aside, me being nerdy, only wanting to stay at home playing games together or separately, watching movies/anime, not liking shopping or going to bars, and being just generally a lazy, fat f*ck I don't really seem to be what people are looking for anyways... ;)
That tells me that you need to try dating black dudes. The whole plus-sized thing is less of a problem there.
LK
It would seem that one can only do so much. Either you can pour your heart and soul into your work or you can put that effort into playing the game. It's easy to get drawn into playing the game. IMHO, All too often, the people at the University who have decision making authority are game players and don't see the value in honest pure research. It's a downward spiral. More game-playing, less work.
LK
I'm already in their databases. I've been visited by the BATF. I haven't broken any laws. I'm not worried.
LK
You really think that an organized military and police force can be stopped by citizens (including grandma) with their .38 S&W?
French Resistance did quite a bit of covert work against the SS with single shot Liberator pistols.
Where do you get the idea that the armies will face each other on a mountain-top like in The Patriot? To control an area, you need boots on the ground. Those boots are on the feet of men who are extremely vulnerable to bullets.
A military unit from elsewhere won't know the terrain like locals. Locals will know good places to hide and operate from. Locals will already know good places to set up ambushes. People fighting for their homes, families and neighbors will be a lot more invested than someone fighting for a paycheck.
LK
No. I wrote what I meant. Perhaps I need to explain more. They need a pool of questions that is perhaps 4x or 5x as large as the exam and produce each test randomly. Do you need me to explain why for this too?
LK
Don't forget the fight against reproductive freedom.
Don't use euphemisms. You mean abortion, so say abortion. The fight is against abortion. Catholics (officially) don't believe in contraception, but they're not trying to ban it. No one is trying to implement compulsory insemination. Your problem is that it's harder to wrap yourself in the cloak of righteous indignation over abortion.
And our unwavering support of Israel despite well documented war crimes.
This isn't because of Christianity, it's because of the ridiculous amount of money that AIPAC has at its disposal.
LK
I agree entirely. I'd even add one more constituency of the Democrats.
Underclass whites.
I'm talking about the people who are working minimum wage part time jobs as careers.
LK
After losing the Civil War, the Dems have voted against every Civil Rights Bill that has come up.
Right, so the party of "secret racists" nominated and elected a black president.
There's nothing secret about it. They are the party of racists. They nominated Obama because just like everyone else, they were tired of the Clinton circus.
LK
Thanks for the history lesson but I was talking primarily about Democratic voters, not politicians.
Who in the fuck do you think is voting for those southern Democrats? DEMOCRATS!
Ever since then the GOP has owned the South.
Please turn off the Daily Show. Have you ever heard of a Bluedog Democrat? THEY own the south. Two of our last three Democrat Presidents were southern governors. Basically, you're just making things up and repeating things you heard other people say.
LK
I know this canard is popular among the modern political left, but it's bunk.
Robert Byrd was a Democrat until the day he died. Al Gore Sr. Voted against the civil rights acts.
LK
Very much, yes.
I recently completed my M.S. and we had one professor in particular who was all about superfluous cites. Basically, if you need to pass his class, you need to meet his ridiculous requirements.
LK
The bodies that come up with the certifications say that they don't repeat questions. Well, if that were true, the Doctors couldn't come up with study guides by recalling questions.
LK