First, anecdotes are not evidence. Second, it would be more accurate to say that a minority of Muslims want to impose Sharia on themselves. Third, only someone with no valid argument resorts to name calling. Fourth, the only commonly available sources for the number of women with driver's licenses in Saudi Arabia (our ally, remember) are going to be anti-Islamists with an axe to grind and doubtful veracity. Fifth, how many women in Iran and Iraq have driver's license? Most of them.
This is so typical, someone with an actual account here disagrees with me but doesn't have the balls to put their name to it. I know who you are because you have a distinctive writing style.
No, you got it all wrong. Due to the condition of the soil, which may or may not have anything to do with queers building landing pads for gay Martians, science projects in Illinois state government invariably lead to hordes of brain eating zombies rising from the grave and voting Democrat.
Do you think that when sharia is instituted in a majority-Muslim country, people can just opt out?
Honestly? No. We can't opt out of Christian marriage laws here and we can't buy booze on Sunday in a lot of places. Religious laws in general suck, and Sharia is a pretty harsh set of laws. Turkey banned the pro sharia, Muslim Refah party on the grounds that Sharia is incompatible with democracy.
I wonder if the Muslim's being polled understand the implications of their decisions. Perhaps they feel that, being in a country founded on a constitution they will be protected from the excesses of Sharia law? I would like to know more about the questions and the methodology of these polls. Also, except for one very unscientific poll conducted in Chicago, I can't find any American polls.
Religions in general breed intolerance. The fundamentalist religious right here in America is every bit as frightening as any Muslim theocracy. I say we get religion out of government all together. I don't want religions of any sort telling me what to do, what to drink, who to marry and so forth.
What a crock. The contracts were drawn up with so many particulars that only Halliburton COULD meet the requirements. They have not been more efficient, and have wasted taxpayer money.
You are flat out calling our military incompetent wastrels. Militaries throughout history have handled all the things that Halliburton now handles for ours, and done it better than Halliburton.
Well, that link is busted, but I did as you said and found some polls, and here's the thing: you left out a very important point: the muslims polled were asked if THEY would wish to operate under Sharia law. They were NOT asked if they wanted to force Sharia law on others.
That is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, and I fail to see how you can in good conscience leave that part out unless you really are trying to whip up hatred of Muslims.
Got some sources on those polls? Plural, like you stated, polls, more than one of them, showing that a disturbingly large percentage of Muslims desire the institutionalization of sharia. With links to the questions, so we can see what kind of bias they contain.
Did you know that polls on people named Christopher showed that a disturbingly large percent of them use unsourced statistics to spread a message of intolerance?
Funny, their net income is listed as $22.6 billion in 2006. KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, has contracts worth up to $18 billion (admittedly over the course of the whole war) in Iraq. Those contracts that have been tracked have been shown to include 55% overhead.
Companies benefit from operating in America. Countries are free to set whatever conditions they want to on corporations. Although currently, getting a corporate charter is merely a matter of filling out the right paperwork, when corporations were invented, the charter was granted conditionally, for a particular type of commerce, in a particular area and could be revoked for any reason. You should really look at the history of corporations, why they were invented and why everyone was worried about them from the get-go.
Forming a corporation should be a privilege, not a right. If you don't want the strings that come along with it, form another kind of company like a partnership or sole-proprietorship.
American companies owe America. We may disagree on what, exactly they owe, but if you don't think that they owe us, you are just ignorant. Do you understand how much of your tax dollars go to subsidize the operations of American corporations? Doing business in a country is a privilege, that is just a fact of doing business. You may wish it otherwise, but we, the people, have the right to regulate corporations.
What happened to land of the free and all that jazz? Corporations have all but demolished the concept of a free citizenry. You are a consumer, a second class citizen. Your interests are secondary to theirs in the eyes of your elected officials. As for All That Jazz, I hear it was released on DVD.
Not always. But if it's not from Sysco, it is going to cost more. High end restaurants almost never use Sysco, for instance. Sysco is like a restaurant in a box, you can get everything: mats, dishes, tableware, food, condiments, and so on. Their sales people are very pushy and will offer you incredible deals to try to get you to use their crap food, but it is crap and it all tastes the same. Anyone who really loves food will buy from places where they have some say over quality, preferably from local, possibly organic vendors. Yes, I also think organic food tastes better than that styrofoam tasting commercial crap.
That is not true. Can you point to one instance where someone doing proper, scientific research (meaning: not just making shit up) has lost grant funding for not predicting global warming? You can't. In fact, anyone who did would still be able to get fat stacks of cash from the oil industry, or don't you remember that story?
My argument amounts to, "They call us names that actually apply more aptly to them." If you want to characterize that argument in terms you are more familiar with, be my guest.
What does the DNC have to do with anything? This isn't a partisan debate, there are plenty of Democrats who don't believe in global warming and plenty of Republicans who do.
I'll put that request for sources back on you. As you are the one making outrageous, paranoid, conspiracy theory type claims, the burden of proof is on you. Show me dissent from climatologists. For that matter, show me where anyone but the right has called someone a hate monger.
There was an objective, reasoned debate. Your side lost, but can't accept the fact. Sorry that reality has such a liberal bias, but there you are.
I'm not talking about skeptics, I already said that. I'm talking about people who use the guise of skepticism, but do not have the open mind real skepticism requires. People who continuously and knowingly trot out stories and ideas that they themselves have seen discredited again and again, knowing that a few people will not have heard the refutations and will be swayed by their lies.
Nice touch, claiming that I'm not capable of being "scientific," whatever that means in your head. That kind of ad hominem not only adds credence to your argument, it makes you, and by association those who support your position, look mature and well reasoned, too./sarcasm
You make my original point for me quite nicely, thank you for displaying the true colors of those who deny anthropogenic global warming.
I knew he was referring to that incident, and I knew it wasn't Gore.
Funny thing, a climatologist saying that meteorologists who talk about climate as if the were climatologists should be stopped. Why, that's like a lawyer claiming that a notary public shouldn't be assigned as a public defender, or a doctor claiming that a vet shouldn't operate on a human. Crazy talk, obviously.
No, Gore is saying "There is virtually no dissent in the scientific community regarding global warming, but newspapers dispute it more than half the time, that's not accurate reporting."
To call that censorship is to denigrate the experiences of people throughout the ages who have experience real censorship. It's like saying that, because you've stubbed your toe, you understand the pain of people who've lost a limb. But don't let the facts stop you, keep on telling everyone that Al Gore is a censor.
What a crock. Do you have any evidence of even ONE person who believes in anthropogenic climate change that drives a huge car? This is the kind of poisoning-the-well, ad-hominem excuse for an argument I've come to expect from people who support the fossil fuel industry.
Slashdot Mirror
First, anecdotes are not evidence. Second, it would be more accurate to say that a minority of Muslims want to impose Sharia on themselves. Third, only someone with no valid argument resorts to name calling. Fourth, the only commonly available sources for the number of women with driver's licenses in Saudi Arabia (our ally, remember) are going to be anti-Islamists with an axe to grind and doubtful veracity. Fifth, how many women in Iran and Iraq have driver's license? Most of them.
This is so typical, someone with an actual account here disagrees with me but doesn't have the balls to put their name to it. I know who you are because you have a distinctive writing style.
No, you got it all wrong. Due to the condition of the soil, which may or may not have anything to do with queers building landing pads for gay Martians, science projects in Illinois state government invariably lead to hordes of brain eating zombies rising from the grave and voting Democrat.
Right, because no American Christian fundamentalist ever said that God hates fags, and those abortion clinic bombings were just a fluke.
I'm not ignorant, you ass. Why would you assume I don't already know these things?
Do you think that when sharia is instituted in a majority-Muslim country, people can just opt out?
Honestly? No. We can't opt out of Christian marriage laws here and we can't buy booze on Sunday in a lot of places. Religious laws in general suck, and Sharia is a pretty harsh set of laws. Turkey banned the pro sharia, Muslim Refah party on the grounds that Sharia is incompatible with democracy.
I wonder if the Muslim's being polled understand the implications of their decisions. Perhaps they feel that, being in a country founded on a constitution they will be protected from the excesses of Sharia law? I would like to know more about the questions and the methodology of these polls. Also, except for one very unscientific poll conducted in Chicago, I can't find any American polls.
Religions in general breed intolerance. The fundamentalist religious right here in America is every bit as frightening as any Muslim theocracy. I say we get religion out of government all together. I don't want religions of any sort telling me what to do, what to drink, who to marry and so forth.
What a crock. The contracts were drawn up with so many particulars that only Halliburton COULD meet the requirements. They have not been more efficient, and have wasted taxpayer money.
You are flat out calling our military incompetent wastrels. Militaries throughout history have handled all the things that Halliburton now handles for ours, and done it better than Halliburton.
Well, that link is busted, but I did as you said and found some polls, and here's the thing: you left out a very important point: the muslims polled were asked if THEY would wish to operate under Sharia law. They were NOT asked if they wanted to force Sharia law on others.
That is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, and I fail to see how you can in good conscience leave that part out unless you really are trying to whip up hatred of Muslims.
Who names their son Ann, anyway?
No, seriously, look at the Adam's apple. Dead giveaway.
Whose ass are you pulling all these lies out of? Got any reputable sources for all this?
Got some sources on those polls? Plural, like you stated, polls, more than one of them, showing that a disturbingly large percentage of Muslims desire the institutionalization of sharia. With links to the questions, so we can see what kind of bias they contain.
Did you know that polls on people named Christopher showed that a disturbingly large percent of them use unsourced statistics to spread a message of intolerance?
Funny, their net income is listed as $22.6 billion in 2006. KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, has contracts worth up to $18 billion (admittedly over the course of the whole war) in Iraq. Those contracts that have been tracked have been shown to include 55% overhead.
You have a funny definition of "lion's share."
Companies benefit from operating in America. Countries are free to set whatever conditions they want to on corporations. Although currently, getting a corporate charter is merely a matter of filling out the right paperwork, when corporations were invented, the charter was granted conditionally, for a particular type of commerce, in a particular area and could be revoked for any reason. You should really look at the history of corporations, why they were invented and why everyone was worried about them from the get-go.
Forming a corporation should be a privilege, not a right. If you don't want the strings that come along with it, form another kind of company like a partnership or sole-proprietorship.
American companies owe America. We may disagree on what, exactly they owe, but if you don't think that they owe us, you are just ignorant. Do you understand how much of your tax dollars go to subsidize the operations of American corporations? Doing business in a country is a privilege, that is just a fact of doing business. You may wish it otherwise, but we, the people, have the right to regulate corporations.
What happened to land of the free and all that jazz?
Corporations have all but demolished the concept of a free citizenry. You are a consumer, a second class citizen. Your interests are secondary to theirs in the eyes of your elected officials. As for All That Jazz, I hear it was released on DVD.
Not always. But if it's not from Sysco, it is going to cost more. High end restaurants almost never use Sysco, for instance. Sysco is like a restaurant in a box, you can get everything: mats, dishes, tableware, food, condiments, and so on. Their sales people are very pushy and will offer you incredible deals to try to get you to use their crap food, but it is crap and it all tastes the same. Anyone who really loves food will buy from places where they have some say over quality, preferably from local, possibly organic vendors. Yes, I also think organic food tastes better than that styrofoam tasting commercial crap.
That is not true. Can you point to one instance where someone doing proper, scientific research (meaning: not just making shit up) has lost grant funding for not predicting global warming? You can't. In fact, anyone who did would still be able to get fat stacks of cash from the oil industry, or don't you remember that story?
No, not a typo. You do remember a fellow named Galileo, right? Now, what was he famous for, I can't quite remember...
Why not look at the wiki page about the history of telescope?
Did you mean Sentinel, The Sentinel, or Sentinel Worlds? If you found something, share!
My argument amounts to, "They call us names that actually apply more aptly to them." If you want to characterize that argument in terms you are more familiar with, be my guest.
What does the DNC have to do with anything? This isn't a partisan debate, there are plenty of Democrats who don't believe in global warming and plenty of Republicans who do.
I'll put that request for sources back on you. As you are the one making outrageous, paranoid, conspiracy theory type claims, the burden of proof is on you. Show me dissent from climatologists. For that matter, show me where anyone but the right has called someone a hate monger.
There was an objective, reasoned debate. Your side lost, but can't accept the fact. Sorry that reality has such a liberal bias, but there you are.
Read the article. The entire Sunrise II aircraft with enough solar cells to put out 600 watts weighed about 4lbs. Solar cells are light.
I'm not talking about skeptics, I already said that. I'm talking about people who use the guise of skepticism, but do not have the open mind real skepticism requires. People who continuously and knowingly trot out stories and ideas that they themselves have seen discredited again and again, knowing that a few people will not have heard the refutations and will be swayed by their lies.
/sarcasm
Nice touch, claiming that I'm not capable of being "scientific," whatever that means in your head. That kind of ad hominem not only adds credence to your argument, it makes you, and by association those who support your position, look mature and well reasoned, too.
You make my original point for me quite nicely, thank you for displaying the true colors of those who deny anthropogenic global warming.
I knew he was referring to that incident, and I knew it wasn't Gore.
Funny thing, a climatologist saying that meteorologists who talk about climate as if the were climatologists should be stopped. Why, that's like a lawyer claiming that a notary public shouldn't be assigned as a public defender, or a doctor claiming that a vet shouldn't operate on a human. Crazy talk, obviously.
No, Gore is saying "There is virtually no dissent in the scientific community regarding global warming, but newspapers dispute it more than half the time, that's not accurate reporting."
To call that censorship is to denigrate the experiences of people throughout the ages who have experience real censorship. It's like saying that, because you've stubbed your toe, you understand the pain of people who've lost a limb. But don't let the facts stop you, keep on telling everyone that Al Gore is a censor.
I'm sorry, but you can't pretend like you didn't just insult the man's entire life work. You aren't a skeptic, you're an asshole.
What a crock. Do you have any evidence of even ONE person who believes in anthropogenic climate change that drives a huge car? This is the kind of poisoning-the-well, ad-hominem excuse for an argument I've come to expect from people who support the fossil fuel industry.
Your back is never going to get better until you put down that boulder.