No, i'm not confused: they are one and the same. If you're not against it, you're for it, legal or not.
What a stupid thing to say. I'll assume your are being stubborn rather than dumb.
i'm sorry, i don't follow you. if someone promotes abortion, and i call them "pro-abortion", how is that incorrect? you see, i'm confused because these people do not in fact "work to protect a womans right", instead, they work at making abortions happen. big difference.
Correct. also irrelevant, since there is virtually no-one who actually PROMOTES abortion outside of China.
so, if i think that it's murder to kill a baby while it's in the womb, i'm automatically "anti-choice". man, orwell could have taken lessons from you.:)
No, not automatically. Once again you are confused. While in the womb, it's not yet a baby. The term is zygote or fetus depending on how many cells are currently involved. The use of the loaded term 'baby' to refer to a fetus is begging the question. I assume you are intelligent enough to know that, and the mis-use of terms is deliberate. This leads me to guess that you in fact anti-choice, although you havn't yet come right out and said so. I can find out for sure if you will answer a simple question.
* Do you believe that abortion should be illegal under all circumstancs? Bonus question: * Do you believe that the death penalty should be an option? Hint, if you answer yes to the bonus question, then you are not pro-life. Have a nice day
You're confused about the difference between promoting something and working to keep it legal. You would be justified in calling someone who promoted abortion as pro-abortion. Just as you would incorrect to call someone who worked to defend a womans right to control her own body anything but pro-choice.
Sadly the bulk of people who call themselves pro-life are shown by their actions to really be anti-choice. Ghandi and the pope are pro-life. But Dubya and his crowd aren't against killing. The are only against reproductive choice.
The law specifically states the rules by which a punch card ballot would be considered voted.
quote:
------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
127.130(d) Subject to Subsection (e), in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot
on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless:
(1) at least two corners of the chad are detached;
(2) light is visible through the hole;
(3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or
(4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote.
(e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter.
------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
It is interesting to note that the DEMS are currently suing to have precisely this legal standard applied to the hand count in Fla.
about 1/4 of Nader voters said that the would not have voted. 3/4 would have voted for Gore (by their own report) if Nader were not running.
More importantly, Nader KNEW this, and chose to campaign MOSTLY in the states where the margin between Gore and Bush was the narrowest.
In other words, he INTENDED to defeat Gore. Like most extremists, he hates people who agree with him one some issues less than those who disagree with him on all of them.
Which is precisely why he would make a lousy president. The man is incapable of compromise.
The browser was DESTINED to become a platform. Netscape couldn't have STOPPED it from becoming one. There are to many obvious convergent trends here for anything else to have happened.
But their goal, was for it to become THEIR platform.
Note that Oracle has EXACTLY THE SAME CLAUSE in their EULA as MS.
The last thing you want is your competitor publishing benchmarks on your software.
The reason for this is obvious. It's just too easy to cook database benchmarks to favor whatever you want to favor.
So only the TCP (a neutral third party) is allowed to publish them.
I'll bet that this is completely enforceable. ESPCIALLY when the person you are trying to enforce it on is a competitor who has the same clause in their EULA.
Nice to see that you've bought into the REP party snow job. But I'm sorry that you're going to be voting. (You are old enough to vote, right?)
Voters have an obligation to educate themselves, It goes along with the previlige and _responsibility_ of voting.
So, here's just a few links for you that debunk that 'Bush has integrity' myth. The man is either a moron or a liar. Given the thing's he's said, he MUST be either one or the other.
Apologies that all of these links are though MSNBC. Tracking down stories I've read on other sites takes more time or requires registration on that site.
Asking whether an unborn child has rights is begging the question. The ONLY relevent question is does a WOMAN have a right to control HER OWN BODY.
In many forms of abortion, the child (or cells?) dont' die until AFTER they are removed from the mother. At that point AND ONLY THEN, is the question of whether the mother has rights or not can be ignored and you can focus your attention entirely on the rights of the child.
Of course, the child will die if it isn't a very late turn abortion.
So if you want to argue that the child, BEFORE BIRTH has the right to live, you have to also argue that he/she has the right to enslave the mother to HIS/HER needs until the time of birth.
Well, guess what, slavery is illegal and immoral. The choice here is, (as you people seem to always conveniently forget) a choice between two options BOTH OF WHICH ARE MORALLY WRONG.
In such a situation, the ONLY just thing to to is let the mother choose.
The GREATER of two evils is even more evil than the lesser. That's why we use the words LESSER and GREATER!
What is so hard about this concept? There ARE degrees of black and white. Even Nader is just a whiter shade of gray.
If, by your actions you help to elect the greater of two evils. Then you are RESPONSIBLE for that act. And no amount of self-serving bullshit about making a futile, moral stand makes a bit of difference.
A vote for Nader may just be what it takes to end up with Bush a president. Which is fine if you don't think he's the devil incarnate. But it's NOT fine if you do.
Wrong! That child did without a desk for several weeks. And it had nothing to do with lab equipment. (Though it certainly wasn't Jeb's fault directly).
You don't say, I'm guessing because you can't refute any of it. But it's conclusions conflict
with your beliefs, so you really WANT it to be incorrect.
He isn't saying that the 'kick in' limit shouldn't be raised. EVERYONE agrees that the limit should be raised. (well, nearly everyone)Even 10 million isn't an unreasonable limit. (as he said)
What the republicans want to do is to REPEAL IT ALTOGETHER. And THAT is an animal of a completely different stripe. Go back and read Brin again, and this time PAY ATTENTION.
When you repeal inheritance taxes completely, then you basically create a inherited aristocracy of wealth like they have in England. It will take a generation (or two?). But in the end, thats exactly what you get. Wealth flows into the wealthy families, and it STAYS THERE. The rate at which wealth flows in to charitable orginizations slows down DRAMATICALLY.
Neither of these are good things for the country as a whole, but both are what the republicans are actually trying to achieve.
Keep in mind that they (probably not Bush, but assuredly Cheney) understand the mathematics of small farms just as well as you if not better. If they were REALLY trying to solve the problem for the farmers, they would be proposing RAISE THE LIMIT.
They arent. Yes, farmers benefit by repealing estate taxes, but that's incidental. The REAL goal of this is to allow the super-rich to make their children super-rich.
After all, Bush may manage to be president for as much as 8 years. But after THAT, he'll have to work for a living unless his daddy is allowed to give him the whole chunk 'o change. (Or he's willing to allow his standard of living to decline after daddy dies).
The same goes for Cheney and HIS children, and for many of the top contributers to the Bush campaign. They KNOW what they are paying for.
Hell, they probably think their campaign contribution as an INVESTMENT.
Slashdot Mirror
No, i'm not confused: they are one and the same. If you're not against it, you're for it, legal or not.
:)
What a stupid thing to say. I'll assume your are being stubborn rather than dumb.
i'm sorry, i don't follow you. if someone promotes abortion, and i call them "pro-abortion", how is that incorrect? you see, i'm confused because these people do not in fact "work to protect a womans right", instead, they work at making abortions happen. big difference.
Correct. also irrelevant, since there is virtually no-one who actually PROMOTES abortion outside of China.
so, if i think that it's murder to kill a baby while it's in the womb, i'm automatically "anti-choice". man, orwell could have taken lessons from you.
No, not automatically. Once again you are confused. While in the womb, it's not yet a baby. The term is zygote or fetus depending on how many cells are currently involved. The use of the loaded term 'baby' to refer to a fetus is begging the question.
I assume you are intelligent enough to know that, and the mis-use of terms is deliberate.
This leads me to guess that you in fact anti-choice, although you havn't yet come right out and said so.
I can find out for sure if you will answer a simple question.
* Do you believe that abortion should be illegal under all circumstancs?
Bonus question:
* Do you believe that the death penalty should be an option?
Hint, if you answer yes to the bonus question, then you are not pro-life.
Have a nice day
tj
You're confused about the difference between promoting something and working to keep it legal.
You would be justified in calling someone who promoted abortion as pro-abortion. Just as you would incorrect to call someone who worked to defend a womans right to control her own body anything but pro-choice.
Sadly the bulk of people who call themselves pro-life are shown by their actions to really be anti-choice.
Ghandi and the pope are pro-life. But Dubya and his crowd aren't against killing. The are only against reproductive choice.
Which only demonstrates your incompetence at administering your NT web servers.
Next question?
tj
The law specifically states the rules by which a punch card ballot would be considered voted.
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
quote:
-----------------------------------------------
127.130(d) Subject to Subsection (e), in any manual count conducted under this code, a vote on a ballot
on which a voter indicates a vote by punching a hole in the ballot may not be counted unless:
(1) at least two corners of the chad are detached;
(2) light is visible through the hole;
(3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote; or
(4) the chad reflects by other means a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote.
(e) Subsection (d) does not supersede any clearly ascertainable intent of the voter.
-----------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note that the DEMS are currently suing to have precisely this legal standard applied to the hand count in Fla.
tj
Surely this is obvious: Any vote that can't
be double checked later for fraud is untrustworthy.
I guess in New York, when you steal an election. it STAYS stolen...
tj
With the whole world (and with an top election committe composed of republicans)
VERY HARD. The risk of getting caught would
be EXCEEDINGLY high.
tj
The fact that a democrat didn't recognise a usability problem doesn't make the problem not exist!
The fact is that some CITIZENS had their vote taken away by the design of this ballot. That's
illegal.
All citizens have the right to vote, even those that have poor eyesight or cognitive skills.
tj
about 1/4 of Nader voters said that the would not have voted. 3/4 would have voted for Gore (by their own report) if Nader were not running.
More importantly, Nader KNEW this, and chose to campaign MOSTLY in the states where the margin between Gore and Bush was the narrowest.
In other words, he INTENDED to defeat Gore. Like most extremists, he hates people who agree with him one some issues less than those who disagree with him on all of them.
Which is precisely why he would make a lousy president. The man is incapable of compromise.
tj
The browser was DESTINED to become a platform. Netscape couldn't have STOPPED it from becoming one. There are to many obvious convergent trends here for anything else to have happened.
But their goal, was for it to become THEIR platform.
And at that, of course, they failed miserably.
tj
It is interesting to note that the EULA for Windows says nothing of the sort.
If MS really is the great satan, AND they
have a durable monopoly, why don't they?
tj
Isn't it REASONABLE for them to tell Larry not to publish benchmarks of their software?
It's not like they are sending Cease and Desist letters to a neutral 3rd party...
tj
Note that Oracle has EXACTLY THE SAME CLAUSE in their EULA as MS.
The last thing you want is your competitor publishing benchmarks on your software.
The reason for this is obvious. It's just too easy to cook database benchmarks to favor whatever you want to favor.
So only the TCP (a neutral third party) is allowed to publish them.
I'll bet that this is completely enforceable. ESPCIALLY when the person you are trying to enforce it on is a competitor who has the same clause in their EULA.
tj
Except of course that Nader has NO chance of actually becomming president.
Surely you know that?
In fact, if you pay attention to ALL of his positions, you would be forced to come to the conclusion that he would make a LOUSY president.
Thankfully, there is no chance of his actually becomming president.
But it raises the question, since he is bound to fail, why do you believe voting for him has any value?
tj
Vax 11/750. and VMS was an AWESOME OS,
much better than current *nix flavors.
tj
George Integrity?
Nice to see that you've bought into the REP party snow job. But I'm sorry that you're going to be voting. (You are old enough to vote, right?)
Voters have an obligation to educate themselves, It goes along with the previlige and _responsibility_ of voting.
So, here's just a few links for you that debunk that 'Bush has integrity' myth. The man is either a moron or a liar. Given the thing's he's said, he MUST be either one or the other.
http://slate.msn.com/Readme/00-10-23/Readme.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/480531.asp?0nm=B26J
http://www.msnbc.com/news/480974.asp?0nm=N24J
http://www.msnbc.com/news/471895.asp?0nm=N34J
http://www.msnbc.com/news/479261.asp?0nm=N32C
http://www.msnbc.com/news/478740.asp?0nm=N33C
http://www.msnbc.com/news/477858.asp?0nm=N35C
Apologies that all of these links are though MSNBC. Tracking down stories I've read on other sites takes more time or requires registration on that site.
tj
Maybe someone should tell him that Bush is in favor of 'innovation' over 'litigation'.
I don't think he'd be amused.
tj
For him, technology is just another form of business. And he belives that ALL businesses should have a minumum of regulation and taxation.
tj
when it's difficult. I applaud you.
But when you stand up for them when that act will cause EXACTLY the harm you are trying to avoid?
That isn't admirable, that's just stupid.
tj
Asking whether an unborn child has rights is begging the question. The ONLY relevent question is does a WOMAN have a right to control HER OWN BODY.
In many forms of abortion, the child (or cells?) dont' die until AFTER they are removed from the mother. At that point AND ONLY THEN, is the question of whether the mother has rights or not can be ignored and you can focus your attention entirely on the rights of the child.
Of course, the child will die if it isn't a very late turn abortion.
So if you want to argue that the child, BEFORE BIRTH has the right to live, you have to also argue that he/she has the right to enslave the mother to HIS/HER needs until the time of birth.
Well, guess what, slavery is illegal and immoral. The choice here is, (as you people seem to always conveniently forget) a choice between two options BOTH OF WHICH ARE MORALLY WRONG.
In such a situation, the ONLY just thing to to is let the mother choose.
tj
The GREATER of two evils is even more evil than the lesser. That's why we use the words LESSER and GREATER!
What is so hard about this concept? There ARE degrees of black and white. Even Nader is just a whiter shade of gray.
If, by your actions you help to elect the greater of two evils. Then you are RESPONSIBLE for that act. And no amount of self-serving bullshit about making a futile, moral stand makes a bit of difference.
A vote for Nader may just be what it takes to end up with Bush a president. Which is fine if you don't think he's the devil incarnate. But it's NOT fine if you do.
tj
Wrong! That child did without a desk for several weeks. And it had nothing to do with lab equipment. (Though it certainly wasn't Jeb's fault directly).
do your homework.
tj
What SPECIFICALLY was incorrect in that article?
You don't say, I'm guessing because you can't refute any of it. But it's conclusions conflict
with your beliefs, so you really WANT it to be incorrect.
Well wishing doesn't make it so.
Do your homework.
tj
He isn't saying that the 'kick in' limit shouldn't be raised. EVERYONE agrees that the limit should be raised. (well, nearly everyone)Even 10 million isn't an unreasonable limit. (as he said)
What the republicans want to do is to REPEAL IT ALTOGETHER. And THAT is an animal of a completely different stripe. Go back and read Brin again, and this time PAY ATTENTION.
When you repeal inheritance taxes completely, then you basically create a inherited aristocracy of wealth like they have in England. It will take a generation (or two?). But in the end, thats exactly what you get. Wealth flows into the wealthy families, and it STAYS THERE. The rate at which wealth flows in to charitable orginizations slows down DRAMATICALLY.
Neither of these are good things for the country as a whole, but both are what the republicans are actually trying to achieve.
Keep in mind that they (probably not Bush, but assuredly Cheney) understand the mathematics of small farms just as well as you if not better. If they were REALLY trying to solve the problem for the farmers, they would be proposing RAISE THE LIMIT.
They arent. Yes, farmers benefit by repealing estate taxes, but that's incidental. The REAL goal of this is to allow the super-rich to make their children super-rich.
After all, Bush may manage to be president for as much as 8 years. But after THAT, he'll have to work for a living unless his daddy is allowed to give him the whole chunk 'o change. (Or he's willing to allow his standard of living to decline after daddy dies).
The same goes for Cheney and HIS children, and for many of the top contributers to the Bush campaign. They KNOW what they are paying for.
Hell, they probably think their campaign contribution as an INVESTMENT.
tj
but hey, you're allowed to vote for Bush if you want to.
He thinks eventually we will have a world where the The SPECS are open, but the implementations are not.
Open standards, NOT open source. I suspect he's right, but it's really too early to be sure.
tj