However, they don't think they should legislate what medical procedures women should have
I do wish that people would quit pretending that abortion is merely a “medical procedure that women have” just because a medical procedure is necessary to reach a baby inside its mother so as to kill it where it would otherwise be relatively protected.
they don't think that gays should be legally second class citizens
I think that marriage is basically an establishment of religion and should be taken out of law altogether. Replace it with a civil union, legally, and then let churches “marry” (or not marry) people however they see fit, though such a religious “marriage” would no longer be a government-recognised status. That’s what churches are best at, right... squabbling over their religious disagreements? If two people want to get “married”, they can go to their Church(TM) and get a bona-fide Marriage(TM), blessed by their religious entity of choice; whereas, if two people want to be legally united with the certain legal benefits that this entails, the government can give them a civil union regardless of who they are. That’s the most sensible solution.
and they don't think that Lou Dobbs is right about immigration
Well, I certainly didn’t think Lou Dobbs was right about immigration... I’d never heard of him until I looked him up (well, maybe I’d heard of him and forgotten his name; I certainly didn’t base my immigration opinions on his). I do find it amusing, however, that being opposed to illegal immigration is considered de facto evidence of being anti-Hispanic to the point that you’re asked whether or not you’ve ever eaten a taco! Now that I’ve looked him up, without reading in-detail what his opinions on the matter are I can pretty confidently say that my views are probably similar to his, although I certainly wouldn’t claim to share exactly the same opinion as him.
Sure, there were quite a few that were unhappy about the results in Florida, but I don't remember them being given nearly as much media attention as, say, the birthers have.
The media in general is heavily biased toward liberals. Of course they’re going to make hay over the right-wing nutjobs and gloss over the left-wing ones.
The rare exception (FOX news) is exactly the opposite.
Now, you tell me where in that sentence you see the right to protect yourself.
Right here: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
the way the second amendment is worded, it has to do with the security of the STATE, not individuals.
No, you’re confusing the why with the what. The why was: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.
A well regulated – abiding by reasonable laws and regulation regarding sale, purchase, ownership, license and use of guns;
Militia – when the constitution was drafted, this meant unorganized armed civilians;
being necessary to the security – self explanatory;
of a free State – We the People: government by the people, for the people. The state is the individuals; the free State is only as free as its individuals;
the right of the people – you and me; with some expectation that we abide by the law: felons forfeit this right;
to keep and bear Arms – if well-regulated, as already stated;
shall not be infringed – self explanatory.
It’s not interpreting it the way I like; it’s interpreting it the way the founders meant it, according to all of the information we have currently.
The majority of America supports health care reform.
Citation needed.
The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them.
The Democrat party’s idea of bipartisan politics is best described as “my way or the highway”. Particularly now that they have the presidency and both houses of congress.
conservative minority
Citation needed.
The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on.
When Bush was president, left-wing nutjobs were not much better. Are we comparing the worst of the worst of both parties?
Ads are reviewed and categorised as 'FamilySafe', 'Non-FamilySafe' or 'Adult Sexual Content' depending on the content of the ad and website. Only 'FamilySafe' images (containing no adult content) will be approved.
Your images may not contain:
* Any material intended for persons over 18.
* Mature sexual themes, nudity and/or sexual activity.
* Crude or indecent language.
* Offensive or inappropriate content.
We reserve the right to exercise our editorial discretion concerning this image requirement.
Google search is not the same thing as Google AdSense. The sponsored links on a Google search are not the same thing as AdSense, either.
So if I want a cougar rescue service I better not name it, and register it's domain as, www.cougarlife.com?
If you want to have your ads displayed on family-friendly sites via the Google AdSense network, then that would be highly advisable. If you do, it precludes your being eligible for AdSense.
Sounds like they’re taking a bunch of small trolls and defeating them with a mega-troll, but it’s okay because this one’s a nice troll. It’s our troll.
It may just be me but you seem a little too subjective and I suspect you're just telling your side of the story:
There really isn’t much more of the story to tell. I was lost; I’d just figured out where I actually was (it was somewhere I finally recognised). Maybe I looked suspicious or something; I was a young guy driving a minivan. That’s no excuse to pull me over and then, when everything else appeared to be in order, give me a ticket for something I didn’t do.
These are both wonderfully obvious indicators of anti-authority views. You lose credibility for being a rational, law-abiding citizen when you insist on claiming to be the only one who is right and the government is completely corrupt and out to get you.
I guess being unfairly put on the wrong end of the law does that to you.
Those cameras actually work both ways. The DA is not required to use or even view such footage* unless he/she needs it to prosecute, or to dismiss the case should they suspect that the officer is lying.
That’s just plain wrong. They should be required to prove their case, not the other way around.
In fact, though, all they have to do is write on the police report that they didn’t save the footage. Boom, no case for you... but they don’t need any proof that you did it because they have a guy who says you did!
And no, your word is not worth that of an officer in good standing, sworn to uphold the law, who risks their career by lying just to push you around.
Right, because cops are always trustworthy.~
Fuck no. In any given situation where the cop says one thing and the suspect says another, I’ll believe the suspect! Now, Mr. Policeman, you can prove to me that you’re telling the truth and the other guy is lying, and then I’ll believe you. That’s what it means to be innocent until proven guilty.
Second, since you seem to think it would make your case you could have tried to request it be made available. Did you?... And please don't start making accusations that they wouldn't give you access if you didn't even bother to try.
I was advised, by a family friend who was also a lawyer who specialised in traffic cases, that it would be futile and I should just pay the fine. Pardon me for taking his advice; maybe I wish now that I had fought harder against the system, but it was certainly not looking like there was any chance of beating it.
Um yes? If you go to porn sites, you will get advertising to other porn sites... and it definitely won’t be Google’s AdSense ads, because AdSense doesn’t allow explicit sites to advertise, and doesn’t allow explicit sites to embed AdSense ads either. So you would see ads from an advertising network that is either not family friendly or solely dedicated to adult sites.
Google has two (three, really) sets of results: non-explicit (family friendly) results, and explicit results (image search breaks that down one further, based on whether it just contains explicit text or contains explicit text and images both on the site).
Maybe Google normally assumes that you probably aren’t searching for explicit sites if the search term you entered wasn’t itself explicit. If you enter explicit search terms, then it will give you explicit results, unless you’ve turned Safe Search on.
So if CougarLife.com is an explicit search result, they pretty much won’t show up unless you search for “cougar” with safe search turned off. This actually limits their search impact to basically reach just the people who were actually looking for those sort of cougars... and I’m really okay with that.
Slashdot Mirror
You’re only proving that you are one of them.
However, they don't think they should legislate what medical procedures women should have
I do wish that people would quit pretending that abortion is merely a “medical procedure that women have” just because a medical procedure is necessary to reach a baby inside its mother so as to kill it where it would otherwise be relatively protected.
they don't think that gays should be legally second class citizens
I think that marriage is basically an establishment of religion and should be taken out of law altogether. Replace it with a civil union, legally, and then let churches “marry” (or not marry) people however they see fit, though such a religious “marriage” would no longer be a government-recognised status. That’s what churches are best at, right... squabbling over their religious disagreements? If two people want to get “married”, they can go to their Church(TM) and get a bona-fide Marriage(TM), blessed by their religious entity of choice; whereas, if two people want to be legally united with the certain legal benefits that this entails, the government can give them a civil union regardless of who they are. That’s the most sensible solution.
and they don't think that Lou Dobbs is right about immigration
Well, I certainly didn’t think Lou Dobbs was right about immigration... I’d never heard of him until I looked him up (well, maybe I’d heard of him and forgotten his name; I certainly didn’t base my immigration opinions on his). I do find it amusing, however, that being opposed to illegal immigration is considered de facto evidence of being anti-Hispanic to the point that you’re asked whether or not you’ve ever eaten a taco! Now that I’ve looked him up, without reading in-detail what his opinions on the matter are I can pretty confidently say that my views are probably similar to his, although I certainly wouldn’t claim to share exactly the same opinion as him.
Pee is sterile. If there’s DNA in it then that’s indicative of something being seriously wrong.
So I'm not allowed to say that people who think for themselves actually think for themselves, or I am showing bias?
Wait... when did you say that conservatives think for themselves?
Sure, there were quite a few that were unhappy about the results in Florida, but I don't remember them being given nearly as much media attention as, say, the birthers have.
The media in general is heavily biased toward liberals. Of course they’re going to make hay over the right-wing nutjobs and gloss over the left-wing ones.
The rare exception (FOX news) is exactly the opposite.
I take it from your statement that you’ve watched it so as to form an accurate opinion?
Her period came a day early, you insensitive clod!
That depends entirely on context: otherwise, how on earth would you know which one to say?
Even in such a case it would be a “summary offense”. No trial would be necessary; he’d simply be fined.
Now, you tell me where in that sentence you see the right to protect yourself.
Right here: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
the way the second amendment is worded, it has to do with the security of the STATE, not individuals.
No, you’re confusing the why with the what. The why was: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.
A well regulated – abiding by reasonable laws and regulation regarding sale, purchase, ownership, license and use of guns;
Militia – when the constitution was drafted, this meant unorganized armed civilians;
being necessary to the security – self explanatory;
of a free State – We the People: government by the people, for the people. The state is the individuals; the free State is only as free as its individuals;
the right of the people – you and me; with some expectation that we abide by the law: felons forfeit this right;
to keep and bear Arms – if well-regulated, as already stated;
shall not be infringed – self explanatory.
It’s not interpreting it the way I like; it’s interpreting it the way the founders meant it, according to all of the information we have currently.
IMO if you act like a fool over something you did wrong in the first place, maybe you deserved to be hauled off to jail.
No. You deserve to look like a fool.
if you're not supposed to use the word, why include it in your language in the first place?
Vs. their idea on including silent letters in words... :p
You never know... he might’ve been born back when breast-feeding was more common.
The majority of America supports health care reform.
Citation needed.
The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them.
The Democrat party’s idea of bipartisan politics is best described as “my way or the highway”. Particularly now that they have the presidency and both houses of congress.
conservative minority
Citation needed.
The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on.
When Bush was president, left-wing nutjobs were not much better. Are we comparing the worst of the worst of both parties?
You’re thinking of |. .|
(. .)
You missed two brackets in your comment.
Does Aero even work if you remote desktop in?
My guess is it drops back down to Basic.
AdSense vs. Google search. Not the same thing at all.
Google’s guidelines for image advertisements includes the following:
Ads are reviewed and categorised as 'FamilySafe', 'Non-FamilySafe' or 'Adult Sexual Content' depending on the content of the ad and website. Only 'FamilySafe' images (containing no adult content) will be approved.
Your images may not contain:
* Any material intended for persons over 18.
* Mature sexual themes, nudity and/or sexual activity.
* Crude or indecent language.
* Offensive or inappropriate content.
We reserve the right to exercise our editorial discretion concerning this image requirement.
Ah, when I search for sugar daddy
Google search is not the same thing as Google AdSense. The sponsored links on a Google search are not the same thing as AdSense, either.
So if I want a cougar rescue service I better not name it, and register it's domain as, www.cougarlife.com?
If you want to have your ads displayed on family-friendly sites via the Google AdSense network, then that would be highly advisable. If you do, it precludes your being eligible for AdSense.
A nuclear device is far too powerful a weapon for any one person to possess full control of.
and in the darkness bind them?
Sounds like they’re taking a bunch of small trolls and defeating them with a mega-troll, but it’s okay because this one’s a nice troll. It’s our troll.
It may just be me but you seem a little too subjective and I suspect you're just telling your side of the story:
There really isn’t much more of the story to tell. I was lost; I’d just figured out where I actually was (it was somewhere I finally recognised). Maybe I looked suspicious or something; I was a young guy driving a minivan. That’s no excuse to pull me over and then, when everything else appeared to be in order, give me a ticket for something I didn’t do.
These are both wonderfully obvious indicators of anti-authority views. You lose credibility for being a rational, law-abiding citizen when you insist on claiming to be the only one who is right and the government is completely corrupt and out to get you.
I guess being unfairly put on the wrong end of the law does that to you.
Those cameras actually work both ways. The DA is not required to use or even view such footage* unless he/she needs it to prosecute, or to dismiss the case should they suspect that the officer is lying.
That’s just plain wrong. They should be required to prove their case, not the other way around.
In fact, though, all they have to do is write on the police report that they didn’t save the footage. Boom, no case for you... but they don’t need any proof that you did it because they have a guy who says you did!
And no, your word is not worth that of an officer in good standing, sworn to uphold the law, who risks their career by lying just to push you around.
Right, because cops are always trustworthy.~
Fuck no. In any given situation where the cop says one thing and the suspect says another, I’ll believe the suspect! Now, Mr. Policeman, you can prove to me that you’re telling the truth and the other guy is lying, and then I’ll believe you. That’s what it means to be innocent until proven guilty.
Second, since you seem to think it would make your case you could have tried to request it be made available. Did you? ... And please don't start making accusations that they wouldn't give you access if you didn't even bother to try.
I was advised, by a family friend who was also a lawyer who specialised in traffic cases, that it would be futile and I should just pay the fine. Pardon me for taking his advice; maybe I wish now that I had fought harder against the system, but it was certainly not looking like there was any chance of beating it.
Um yes? If you go to porn sites, you will get advertising to other porn sites... and it definitely won’t be Google’s AdSense ads, because AdSense doesn’t allow explicit sites to advertise, and doesn’t allow explicit sites to embed AdSense ads either. So you would see ads from an advertising network that is either not family friendly or solely dedicated to adult sites.
Dammit, I read that leotard clad overlords.
Google has two (three, really) sets of results: non-explicit (family friendly) results, and explicit results (image search breaks that down one further, based on whether it just contains explicit text or contains explicit text and images both on the site).
Maybe Google normally assumes that you probably aren’t searching for explicit sites if the search term you entered wasn’t itself explicit. If you enter explicit search terms, then it will give you explicit results, unless you’ve turned Safe Search on.
So if CougarLife.com is an explicit search result, they pretty much won’t show up unless you search for “cougar” with safe search turned off. This actually limits their search impact to basically reach just the people who were actually looking for those sort of cougars... and I’m really okay with that.