For years US states have fought over which way the wind blows and as China ramps up *of course* its going to effect everyone down wind. What I found amusing is how they are saying a quadrupling of Chinese pollution (including co2) will 'mask' global warming?
How, exactly, does on mask global warming? by making it cooler? umm thats global cooling,...
So were set:
If its gets warmer its because of co2, if its gets cooler its because of co2.... that about covers everything..
"there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what"
There is the matter of quality over quantity. If you spread your genes so far and wide that they are doomed to die or be at a disadvantage because they are lacking in support is that better than fewer more cared for who will almost certainly themselves go on to breed.
Perfect? no but he is a solid Governor and the fact he won in Minnesota a state which *always* goes Democrat in presidential election just goes to show he is not to partisan that many here are trying to pain him as.
"Pawlenty made a pledge to *never raise taxes and has worked hard to reduce taxes. Sounds pretty straight forward, right? Well.. to balance the budget while not raising taxes and ALSO cutting taxes and spending state coffers on a small feel-good refund he eliminated several public services from the state responsibility (you know.. the things I pay taxes for like roads, education, snow plowing, public safety) The result?"
Ummm no, while he might have cut spending in some areas he did not 'eliminate from the blah blah blah:
Education: Is 12,000 a head from Minneapolis schools *really* not enough money?, Really?; please give me 24K to home school my two kids I guarantee I could do a better job than the Minneapolis school district. He also started letting local school boards have more control *gasp* more local accountability of school districts to local kids and parents we cant have that now.
Snow Plowing: Other than state roads *why* should this not be a local function?
public safety: He has not cut funding for state troopers or other agencies wht he has done is stopped subsidizing property owners by paying off towns so they can keep property taxes low via hitting up everyone with income tax.
Roads: Right the tight funds have nothing to do with the fact that construction is much more expensive than it should be (asphalt is partly made of oil after all). As to the I35W that bridge was built wrong in the 60's multiple governors from both parties dropped the ball on this one over the decades.
"Statewide inspection of all bridges yields a vast majority are in need of serious work and a large number are just as in danger of critical failure as that one was."
This is true in *every state in the union* and these bridges did not just go bad in the past 6 years, 35W had been sporting gusset plates of the wrong thickness for 40+ years.
"Education, Snow removal, Public Safety: These activities still had to occur so they fell to the local municipalities."
As they should do you really think a bureaucrat in STP knows better which roads need to be done in Blue Earth County than say the county board does? so what if its paid for at the local level rather than the state?
"SO my state taxes went down $30 / year. MY PROPERTY TAXES went up by over $1500 / year to compensate! It's called blind loyalty to ideals without recognizing the practicality of the real world."
Dude if your property taxes went up 1500, when my taxes on a 150K home in Dakota county are only 11 in total I smell 3 possibilities
1) Your county is run for crap 2) Your home is worth millions of dollars so stop complaining about 1500 you selfish twit 3) Your shoveling BS
"And Hillary was full of crap in the primary. For all her hooting and hollering on experience, she's only been in the Senate 4 years longer than he has."
And she has been in on many decision at the white house... She ran the universal health care effort in 1992 she was the second most experienced democrat running (behind Biden)..
"Wow. Seriously? Are you this stupid? You have to ask why serving as the head of a law review board at Harvard and then teaching Constitutional law for 10 years is a plus for the president of the United States?"
Yes, Signing bills is only part of the job and is, in fact, a much smaller part than actually executing them!
"The millions of federal employees under his watch?"
do they work for a law review?
Seriously the 'law review thing' is nice resume padding but it gives *no* executive experience and when your running for president and have to claim 'I ran a review journal' as 'practical experience' your reaching pretty damn far.
"Teaching Constitutional law for 10 years"
I guarantee you I can find a constitutional law professor with whom you would disagree 100% on most issue... Also he was *not* a teacher he was a guest lecturer.. Though if he was a teacher it might explain why he was to busy to vote yea/nea on so many bills while he was a member of the Ill legislature.
The woman has run a state in the union, she has been a mayor and has about 20 years in politics this is about the *same* as Obama.
He was the head of a professional review journal? what the hell does *that* have to do with running a nation?
He was a state senator whit an awesome absentee record (you can skip allot of days as a legislator but not many as an executive).
Then he went on to win a senate seat in what was effectively an uncontested race and has spent more time running for higher office than actually doing anything else..
McCain is no robot but hes not a true conservative either. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy I don't think he could have gotten me to vote for him (I was looking at the libertarian party this year). I have to look more into Palin its one thing to read a wiki and the news articles its another thing to start to tear down what she has done. For me to say 75% in August is big, its been a long time...
Yes she is smart, a conservative non partisan (as McCain is a moderate non partisan) so the ticket is *very* nice for an independent minded peron who is center or right.
I am mildly concerned with her experience but Im sure when I did down Ill see a resume deeper than the 2 years of Governer (how many times has Obama referenced his community organizing as part of his experience?)
"But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska."
With more executive experience than anyone else on *either* ticket! yes she is not one to run on experience but you dont think the dems will dare call her on that do you? after all I look forward to a McCain commercial with Hillary talking about Obamas experience from the primaries.
"The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency."
As a social conservative I have to ask you... what the hell are you talking about? I was 90% sure I was going to vote 3rd party *again* this year. If he had Picked Romney I would have voted 3rd, if he had Picked Lieberman I would have voted 3rd, Pawlenty might have gotten me to 50/50... but this pick is *solid* and Im now in the 75% voting McCain...
""In his 23 August opinion piece in CNet, Declan McCullagh wrote on Joe Biden's suitability as the Democratic VP nominee, Declan quotes me, creating the impression I criticized Biden for some legislation that Biden introduced in 1991. Declan's quote from me is out of context because it does not make it clear that I never mentioned Biden in my original quote at all when I wrote about Senate Bill 266. Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this.""
So in 1999 you made a ruckus about a bill from 1991 *that was introduced by Biden* but for some reason its not fair to point that out?
Look if you want to vote for Obama/Biden *despite* some of the crap he has pulled regarding IP fine, I cna understand but dont put on the kneepads and ignore the crap they did! thats who politicians become unaccountable..
"I disagree. First off, I note nothing in here about teaching *boys* the same thing"
Are you joking? What about the part "You can also teach boys that screwing around does not make them powerful.." Are you really *that* selective a reader...
"Actually, if that's your position I'd agree totally with you. We probably only disagree as to the severity of the "damage.:-)"
Perhaps but it is nice to agree in principle if not in degree.
"They also beg for citations. Got 'em?"
Well you are spot on about abortion, that really is apples and oranges but as to the others ill dig around and PM you..
"You can't have the former without changing the latter. Society's taboos around sex were designed to keep women down. Probably the single greatest advancement ever in women's equality was The Pill."
I think thats a false argument, you can teach girls its not good to have unattached sex without teaching them they are in a lower position. You can also teach boys that screwing around does not make them powerful..
Really the Pill? Yea forget the right to vote, or the fact a woman served in the senate well before the pill... consequence free sex is the big equalizer..
"I'm not disagreeing that certain stimulus and input can damage our children, but isn't it the parent's job to...uhm, parent?"
Where did I say otherwise? The parent said porn is harmless and I disagreed you seem to agree with me. I never said the govt should get involved.
"And on a positive note, without porn I suspect that there'd be not much more than the Acceptable Missionary Position. Porn pushes boundaries and lets adults experiment and enjoy one of the most fundamental human experiences and desires in new ways"
Are you joking? people have been well aware of and practicing all the sexual positions you can imagine. This weird belief that somehow religious / older folks stick to 'just the accepted missionary position' is an ignorance of history.
"Perhaps this is just my 70's showing, but I still fail to see any real tangible harm being done. "
That all depends on your definition of tangible. Am I saying pron should be banned? no that would be censorship. I think the damage done by porn is akin to kids being desensitized to violence, not a matter for government regulation but certainly it is harmful...
"We slipped up and let the sexual revolution happen. Now nobody's feeling guilty so we can't manipulate them anymore. Perhaps we can undo it slowly with a bunch of psycobable."
Do you really think adolescence are better off since the sexual revolution? higher rates of pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases beg to differ. There were some good things to come out of the sexual revolution but those were about Gender equality and not sex..
"Even your supposed study shows nothing more than that girls will do stupid shit to get guys attention. (Duh)"
Umm 'stupid shit for attention', like having sex because of social pressure? why is it if a guy exerts emotional and social manipulation its a form of rape or at the very least a scummy behavior but those things in our society which do the exact same thing to a girl are 'harmless'
"As long as nobody gets diseased or pregnant or commits a criminal offense, why is it my business at all how someone else felt about their sex partner at the time? And why earth would *you* care if I care? It most assuredly isn't *your* business."
I would hope for your kids sake that to them sex is not just about having an orgasm, that is very shallow unrewarding sex and leaves young adults (both sexes) wide open for serious emotional damage. But you're right how you raise your kids is not my business nor was I trying to imply that it is. When I say 'I hope that X' its the same as saying 'I hope you see the doctor, eat right and exercise' Its not about me putting pressure or trying to will you to be me, is me wishing you the best sorry if it came off as pushy.
BTW believe it or not there are other bad things to come out of unwise sex than disease, pregnancy, and crime. People can be seriously emotionally damaged when the person they thought 'loved them' or 'would love them if' are kicked to the side. Teaching young boys that sex is just about getting off and has no consequences besides this helps to cause such things to happen.
"I'll agree that if someone were to look to pron material for relationship advice, the results would be pretty disasterous (not to mention the immense competition there'd be for the position of Pizza Delivery Boy). However, I'm pretty sure my kids aren't that dumb."
really you think kids are smart now when a scant few words ago you were saying "girls will do stupid shit to get guys attention. (Duh)"... Whats changed in these few words (or are they smart one moment and dumb the next at your behest)? Kids *are* dumb, they might be smart enough to realize that the Pizza guy does not get the hot chick who is lonely but they are dumb enough to begin to think hot, emotionally empty, vagina transport mechanism is what Girls should be.
That the really desirable women are the vapid horny girls with whom no real emotional need to be met. It teaches 'empty sex' and in doing so it will stunt a kids healthy sexual development. There is more to sex than where you stick your penis, if it were that easy parents everywhere could breath a huge sigh of relief. But weather or not you want your kid to wait until marriage I hope you want them to have sex with people with whom they actually have an emotional connection.
What does porn teach young women?
Porn, and the reaction to it among young men teaches young girls and women that if they want that guy to like them that they have to be sexually flirtatious. To the point where there have been studies showing more girls willing to make out with other girls (for attention) as it becomes more likely in our cultural references. Girls are left with the social impression that they are a vagina and giving it up will get them the attention and assurance they seek from male counterparts.
--
Porn is very harmful *especially* in kids who are sexually developing...
That should not matter. Hell Disney could still sell shirts with steamboat mickey on it so does that justify their copyright? how much in sales justifies breaking the principle of copyright?
To be fair I can understand Nintendo holding many of these copyright still; not because they are still selling super Mario brothers but because 30-35 years seems to be a somewhat realistic length of copyright for something that is not totally abandoned (not ideal mind you but I am a compromiser by nature).
To me if a corporation creates a copy written object it should get 12-25 years and thats it. If an individuals does it then the grant should be until they die, or 12-25 years which ever is longer.
"The authors do not harass the public. They only ensure that big corporations do not coopt their intellectual property for their own profit without paying a fair share."
The point is that the legal protection of copyright is not to protect IP forever, just for a reasonably useful amount of time so its worth wild to create art. By extending these copyrights out forever a very important social contract is being broken in which the people of a society protect your art for a time so that you may profit so that later on others can profit. Allowing Copyrights to go beyond the life of the item creator (not the corporation but the artist) is a joke.
"Did your parents pay a royalty to sing that song to you?"
No but small business cant sing happy birthday without getting sued.
"the authors do not harass the public. They only ensure that big corporations do not coopt their intellectual property for their own profit without paying a fair share."
The 'authors' of happy birthday have been dead for more than 60 years.. The big corporations who 'own' the songs are harassing other big corporation and small ones for a work more than 100 years old who's authors are long dead.
First of all rush is a party tool, I dislike party tool (irregardless of the party) Rush and Stephane Miller are in the same bucket (IMHO), I do however rather like the Ed Schultz Show.
Secondly, I told you that I am seeing someone you can stop following me around, its not going to happen (I'm not going to follow you around)
Lastly:
Not only are many bills passed with 2/3rds or more support many bills have sponsors from both parties, I know of this by actually keeping track of issues other than Iraq and Immigration watch C-Span sometime and read beyond the headlines in the papers and youll see that the democrats and republicans agree on about 60-70% of what they work on.
While finding a list of vote by vote for the 110th congress by percent is proving somewhat difficult I did come across this:
More often than not the GOP and the Democrats have the same position on these bills (given how close the numbers are that would mean at least 75% in favor)
Looking at a specific one where there is disagreement you still see a large majority supporting the bill:
Vote description: Feingold Amdt. No. 5183; To require as a precondition to United States-India peaceful atomic energy cooperation determinations by the President that United States nuclear cooperation with India does nothing to assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Party Yes No Not Voting Democratic 25 19 0 Independent 0 0 1 Republican 0 52 3 Total 25 71 4
--
Given you said *there are not any bills* which are agreed to by 70% of the membership and I just provided one I trust you retract the 'liar' statement, hell even the flag burning amendment get up to 66% agreement between the parties..
Usually what you see with a senate vote is a huge majority of one party voting and a measurable minority of the other party voting the same way. Blue state Republicans like Olympia Snowe often vote with democrats and Blue Dog Democrats (like former Senator Zell Miller) voting with Republicans..
Most times votes are won by 70% or more, the times when things get really harry are usually avoided by backroom deals and party leadership trying not to isolate a wing of their party. e.g. Blue Dogs voted against bundling GI benefits into the war spending *against* the will of their leadership and because of that the leadership came back with the GI spending in its own bill to which they voted.
This Just in: Two parties is not black and white within themselves let alone when put together!
The president is not anymore powerful than Congress or the courts and Congress is made up mainly of the two major parties but the differences in those parties is measurable.
Compare any Blue Dog Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrat) to Ted Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy) and you would be amazed they are in the same party as they will differ on social issues, Government scope and a few dozen other ones. In the same light compare Olympia Snowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe) to Norm Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Coleman) and you're going to see some huge differences. Just because two people are in the same party does not mean they have the same views on most issues.
"For instance, if you don't like (most don't) much of the Bush administrations power grabs, it means you must fully support those of Clinton (DMCA, among others)"
I believe if you sit down 100 Americans 60-75 would either condemn or accept both the number of huge partisans out there is pretty small. Given the fact that you went from a Regan landslide in 84 to Clinton Smashing Bush in 1992 its pretty clear American politics is far more fluid than you're giving it credit for.
Gotta love/.! I'm here a few weeks and already I have my very own stalker! Sorry man, it will never work I am already seeing someone so pack up the shrine, stop hanging out in front of my house and move on.... There are other fish in the sea..
--
In regards to your question..
I don't think even one song being taken without compensation is OK but I think getting the police involved is like sending swat to take care of jaywalkers. Its not a matter of is it OK to steal (using the word steal really loosely here) its a matter of at what point a civil matter should become the business of law enforcement.
"30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging" is saying "a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates" while 30% might be many more people in favor of government content management than I would have thought it *still* means there are enough opposed to it to, in theory, pass a constitutional amendment!
Slashdot Mirror
For years US states have fought over which way the wind blows and as China ramps up *of course* its going to effect everyone down wind. What I found amusing is how they are saying a quadrupling of Chinese pollution (including co2) will 'mask' global warming?
How, exactly, does on mask global warming? by making it cooler? umm thats global cooling, ...
So were set:
If its gets warmer its because of co2, if its gets cooler its because of co2.... that about covers everything..
"there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what"
There is the matter of quality over quantity. If you spread your genes so far and wide that they are doomed to die or be at a disadvantage because they are lacking in support is that better than fewer more cared for who will almost certainly themselves go on to breed.
Perfect? no but he is a solid Governor and the fact he won in Minnesota a state which *always* goes Democrat in presidential election just goes to show he is not to partisan that many here are trying to pain him as.
"Pawlenty made a pledge to *never raise taxes and has worked hard to reduce taxes. Sounds pretty straight forward, right? Well.. to balance the budget while not raising taxes and ALSO cutting taxes and spending state coffers on a small feel-good refund he eliminated several public services from the state responsibility (you know.. the things I pay taxes for like roads, education, snow plowing, public safety)
The result?"
Ummm no, while he might have cut spending in some areas he did not 'eliminate from the blah blah blah:
Education: Is 12,000 a head from Minneapolis schools *really* not enough money?, Really?; please give me 24K to home school my two kids I guarantee I could do a better job than the Minneapolis school district. He also started letting local school boards have more control *gasp* more local accountability of school districts to local kids and parents we cant have that now.
Snow Plowing: Other than state roads *why* should this not be a local function?
public safety: He has not cut funding for state troopers or other agencies wht he has done is stopped subsidizing property owners by paying off towns so they can keep property taxes low via hitting up everyone with income tax.
Roads: Right the tight funds have nothing to do with the fact that construction is much more expensive than it should be (asphalt is partly made of oil after all). As to the I35W that bridge was built wrong in the 60's multiple governors from both parties dropped the ball on this one over the decades.
"Statewide inspection of all bridges yields a vast majority are in need of serious work and a large number are just as in danger of critical failure as that one was."
This is true in *every state in the union* and these bridges did not just go bad in the past 6 years, 35W had been sporting gusset plates of the wrong thickness for 40+ years.
"Education, Snow removal, Public Safety: These activities still had to occur so they fell to the local municipalities."
As they should do you really think a bureaucrat in STP knows better which roads need to be done in Blue Earth County than say the county board does? so what if its paid for at the local level rather than the state?
"SO my state taxes went down $30 / year. MY PROPERTY TAXES went up by over $1500 / year to compensate! It's called blind loyalty to ideals without recognizing the practicality of the real world."
Dude if your property taxes went up 1500, when my taxes on a 150K home in Dakota county are only 11 in total I smell 3 possibilities
1) Your county is run for crap
2) Your home is worth millions of dollars so stop complaining about 1500 you selfish twit
3) Your shoveling BS
"And Hillary was full of crap in the primary. For all her hooting and hollering on experience, she's only been in the Senate 4 years longer than he has."
And she has been in on many decision at the white house... She ran the universal health care effort in 1992 she was the second most experienced democrat running (behind Biden)..
"Wow. Seriously? Are you this stupid? You have to ask why serving as the head of a law review board at Harvard and then teaching Constitutional law for 10 years is a plus for the president of the United States?"
Yes, Signing bills is only part of the job and is, in fact, a much smaller part than actually executing them!
"The millions of federal employees under his watch?"
do they work for a law review?
Seriously the 'law review thing' is nice resume padding but it gives *no* executive experience and when your running for president and have to claim 'I ran a review journal' as 'practical experience' your reaching pretty damn far.
"Teaching Constitutional law for 10 years"
I guarantee you I can find a constitutional law professor with whom you would disagree 100% on most issue... Also he was *not* a teacher he was a guest lecturer.. Though if he was a teacher it might explain why he was to busy to vote yea/nea on so many bills while he was a member of the Ill legislature.
Funny, Thats akin to Hillary's line about Obama.
The woman has run a state in the union, she has been a mayor and has about 20 years in politics this is about the *same* as Obama.
He was the head of a professional review journal? what the hell does *that* have to do with running a nation?
He was a state senator whit an awesome absentee record (you can skip allot of days as a legislator but not many as an executive).
Then he went on to win a senate seat in what was effectively an uncontested race and has spent more time running for higher office than actually doing anything else..
McCain is no robot but hes not a true conservative either. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy I don't think he could have gotten me to vote for him (I was looking at the libertarian party this year). I have to look more into Palin its one thing to read a wiki and the news articles its another thing to start to tear down what she has done. For me to say 75% in August is big, its been a long time...
Yes she is smart, a conservative non partisan (as McCain is a moderate non partisan) so the ticket is *very* nice for an independent minded peron who is center or right.
I am mildly concerned with her experience but Im sure when I did down Ill see a resume deeper than the 2 years of Governer (how many times has Obama referenced his community organizing as part of his experience?)
Well for one she did not pass off some half brained lie about it...
Ummm we got to the almighty and powerful federal government we have because of people selling out for less..
"But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska."
With more executive experience than anyone else on *either* ticket! yes she is not one to run on experience but you dont think the dems will dare call her on that do you? after all I look forward to a McCain commercial with Hillary talking about Obamas experience from the primaries.
"The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency."
As a social conservative I have to ask you... what the hell are you talking about? I was 90% sure I was going to vote 3rd party *again* this year. If he had Picked Romney I would have voted 3rd, if he had Picked Lieberman I would have voted 3rd, Pawlenty might have gotten me to 50/50... but this pick is *solid* and Im now in the 75% voting McCain...
Thats simple were they from a governmental mailserver or not?
""In his 23 August opinion piece in CNet, Declan McCullagh wrote on Joe Biden's suitability as the Democratic VP nominee, Declan quotes me, creating the impression I criticized Biden for some legislation that Biden introduced in 1991. Declan's quote from me is out of context because it does not make it clear that I never mentioned Biden in my original quote at all when I wrote about Senate Bill 266. Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this.""
So in 1999 you made a ruckus about a bill from 1991 *that was introduced by Biden* but for some reason its not fair to point that out?
Look if you want to vote for Obama/Biden *despite* some of the crap he has pulled regarding IP fine, I cna understand but dont put on the kneepads and ignore the crap they did! thats who politicians become unaccountable..
"I disagree. First off, I note nothing in here about teaching *boys* the same thing"
Are you joking? What about the part "You can also teach boys that screwing around does not make them powerful.." Are you really *that* selective a reader...
"Actually, if that's your position I'd agree totally with you. We probably only disagree as to the severity of the "damage. :-)"
Perhaps but it is nice to agree in principle if not in degree.
"They also beg for citations. Got 'em?"
Well you are spot on about abortion, that really is apples and oranges but as to the others ill dig around and PM you..
"You can't have the former without changing the latter. Society's taboos around sex were designed to keep women down. Probably the single greatest advancement ever in women's equality was The Pill."
I think thats a false argument, you can teach girls its not good to have unattached sex without teaching them they are in a lower position. You can also teach boys that screwing around does not make them powerful..
Really the Pill? Yea forget the right to vote, or the fact a woman served in the senate well before the pill... consequence free sex is the big equalizer..
"I'm not disagreeing that certain stimulus and input can damage our children, but isn't it the parent's job to ...uhm, parent?"
Where did I say otherwise? The parent said porn is harmless and I disagreed you seem to agree with me. I never said the govt should get involved.
"And on a positive note, without porn I suspect that there'd be not much more than the Acceptable Missionary Position. Porn pushes boundaries and lets adults experiment and enjoy one of the most fundamental human experiences and desires in new ways"
Are you joking? people have been well aware of and practicing all the sexual positions you can imagine. This weird belief that somehow religious / older folks stick to 'just the accepted missionary position' is an ignorance of history.
"Perhaps this is just my 70's showing, but I still fail to see any real tangible harm being done. "
That all depends on your definition of tangible. Am I saying pron should be banned? no that would be censorship. I think the damage done by porn is akin to kids being desensitized to violence, not a matter for government regulation but certainly it is harmful...
"We slipped up and let the sexual revolution happen. Now nobody's feeling guilty so we can't manipulate them anymore. Perhaps we can undo it slowly with a bunch of psycobable."
Do you really think adolescence are better off since the sexual revolution? higher rates of pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases beg to differ. There were some good things to come out of the sexual revolution but those were about Gender equality and not sex..
"Even your supposed study shows nothing more than that girls will do stupid shit to get guys attention. (Duh)"
Umm 'stupid shit for attention', like having sex because of social pressure? why is it if a guy exerts emotional and social manipulation its a form of rape or at the very least a scummy behavior but those things in our society which do the exact same thing to a girl are 'harmless'
"As long as nobody gets diseased or pregnant or commits a criminal offense, why is it my business at all how someone else felt about their sex partner at the time? And why earth would *you* care if I care? It most assuredly isn't *your* business."
I would hope for your kids sake that to them sex is not just about having an orgasm, that is very shallow unrewarding sex and leaves young adults (both sexes) wide open for serious emotional damage. But you're right how you raise your kids is not my business nor was I trying to imply that it is. When I say 'I hope that X' its the same as saying 'I hope you see the doctor, eat right and exercise' Its not about me putting pressure or trying to will you to be me, is me wishing you the best sorry if it came off as pushy.
BTW believe it or not there are other bad things to come out of unwise sex than disease, pregnancy, and crime. People can be seriously emotionally damaged when the person they thought 'loved them' or 'would love them if' are kicked to the side. Teaching young boys that sex is just about getting off and has no consequences besides this helps to cause such things to happen.
"I'll agree that if someone were to look to pron material for relationship advice, the results would be pretty disasterous (not to mention the immense competition there'd be for the position of Pizza Delivery Boy). However, I'm pretty sure my kids aren't that dumb."
really you think kids are smart now when a scant few words ago you were saying "girls will do stupid shit to get guys attention. (Duh)"... Whats changed in these few words (or are they smart one moment and dumb the next at your behest)? Kids *are* dumb, they might be smart enough to realize that the Pizza guy does not get the hot chick who is lonely but they are dumb enough to begin to think hot, emotionally empty, vagina transport mechanism is what Girls should be.
What does porn teach young men?
That the really desirable women are the vapid horny girls with whom no real emotional need to be met. It teaches 'empty sex' and in doing so it will stunt a kids healthy sexual development. There is more to sex than where you stick your penis, if it were that easy parents everywhere could breath a huge sigh of relief. But weather or not you want your kid to wait until marriage I hope you want them to have sex with people with whom they actually have an emotional connection.
What does porn teach young women?
Porn, and the reaction to it among young men teaches young girls and women that if they want that guy to like them that they have to be sexually flirtatious. To the point where there have been studies showing more girls willing to make out with other girls (for attention) as it becomes more likely in our cultural references. Girls are left with the social impression that they are a vagina and giving it up will get them the attention and assurance they seek from male counterparts.
--
Porn is very harmful *especially* in kids who are sexually developing...
thankfully that was smacked down *and* a precedent was set that take down notices have to do a good faith evaluation to see if its fair use..
It was not Prince but Atlantic records (I think)
That should not matter. Hell Disney could still sell shirts with steamboat mickey on it so does that justify their copyright? how much in sales justifies breaking the principle of copyright?
To be fair I can understand Nintendo holding many of these copyright still; not because they are still selling super Mario brothers but because 30-35 years seems to be a somewhat realistic length of copyright for something that is not totally abandoned (not ideal mind you but I am a compromiser by nature).
To me if a corporation creates a copy written object it should get 12-25 years and thats it. If an individuals does it then the grant should be until they die, or 12-25 years which ever is longer.
"The authors do not harass the public. They only ensure that big corporations do not coopt their intellectual property for their own profit without paying a fair share."
The point is that the legal protection of copyright is not to protect IP forever, just for a reasonably useful amount of time so its worth wild to create art. By extending these copyrights out forever a very important social contract is being broken in which the people of a society protect your art for a time so that you may profit so that later on others can profit. Allowing Copyrights to go beyond the life of the item creator (not the corporation but the artist) is a joke.
"Did your parents pay a royalty to sing that song to you?"
No but small business cant sing happy birthday without getting sued.
"the authors do not harass the public. They only ensure that big corporations do not coopt their intellectual property for their own profit without paying a fair share."
The 'authors' of happy birthday have been dead for more than 60 years.. The big corporations who 'own' the songs are harassing other big corporation and small ones for a work more than 100 years old who's authors are long dead.
First of all rush is a party tool, I dislike party tool (irregardless of the party) Rush and Stephane Miller are in the same bucket (IMHO), I do however rather like the Ed Schultz Show.
Secondly, I told you that I am seeing someone you can stop following me around, its not going to happen (I'm not going to follow you around)
Lastly:
Not only are many bills passed with 2/3rds or more support many bills have sponsors from both parties, I know of this by actually keeping track of issues other than Iraq and Immigration watch C-Span sometime and read beyond the headlines in the papers and youll see that the democrats and republicans agree on about 60-70% of what they work on.
While finding a list of vote by vote for the 110th congress by percent is proving somewhat difficult I did come across this:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/f000439/
More often than not the GOP and the Democrats have the same position on these bills (given how close the numbers are that would mean at least 75% in favor)
Looking at a specific one where there is disagreement you still see a large majority supporting the bill:
Vote description: Feingold Amdt. No. 5183; To require as a precondition to United States-India peaceful atomic energy cooperation determinations by the President that United States nuclear cooperation with India does nothing to assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Party Yes No Not Voting
Democratic 25 19 0
Independent 0 0 1
Republican 0 52 3
Total 25 71 4
--
Given you said *there are not any bills* which are agreed to by 70% of the membership and I just provided one I trust you retract the 'liar' statement, hell even the flag burning amendment get up to 66% agreement between the parties..
Usually what you see with a senate vote is a huge majority of one party voting and a measurable minority of the other party voting the same way. Blue state Republicans like Olympia Snowe often vote with democrats and Blue Dog Democrats (like former Senator Zell Miller) voting with Republicans..
Most times votes are won by 70% or more, the times when things get really harry are usually avoided by backroom deals and party leadership trying not to isolate a wing of their party. e.g. Blue Dogs voted against bundling GI benefits into the war spending *against* the will of their leadership and because of that the leadership came back with the GI spending in its own bill to which they voted.
This Just in: Two parties is not black and white within themselves let alone when put together!
The president is not anymore powerful than Congress or the courts and Congress is made up mainly of the two major parties but the differences in those parties is measurable.
Compare any Blue Dog Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrat) to Ted Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy) and you would be amazed they are in the same party as they will differ on social issues, Government scope and a few dozen other ones. In the same light compare Olympia Snowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe) to Norm Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Coleman) and you're going to see some huge differences. Just because two people are in the same party does not mean they have the same views on most issues.
"For instance, if you don't like (most don't) much of the Bush administrations power grabs, it means you must fully support those of Clinton (DMCA, among others)"
I believe if you sit down 100 Americans 60-75 would either condemn or accept both the number of huge partisans out there is pretty small. Given the fact that you went from a Regan landslide in 84 to Clinton Smashing Bush in 1992 its pretty clear American politics is far more fluid than you're giving it credit for.
Gotta love /.! I'm here a few weeks and already I have my very own stalker! Sorry man, it will never work I am already seeing someone so pack up the shrine, stop hanging out in front of my house and move on.... There are other fish in the sea..
--
In regards to your question..
I don't think even one song being taken without compensation is OK but I think getting the police involved is like sending swat to take care of jaywalkers. Its not a matter of is it OK to steal (using the word steal really loosely here) its a matter of at what point a civil matter should become the business of law enforcement.
Its good to not be the errand boy of thr RIAA and others but 3K songs seems a might high..
"30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging" is saying "a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates" while 30% might be many more people in favor of government content management than I would have thought it *still* means there are enough opposed to it to, in theory, pass a constitutional amendment!