So what about non-Christian or non-patriarchal heterosexual marriage? According to your definition, there should be no reason for a man and a woman who don't believe in or want to further "patriarchy" to want to marry either. It's a bizarre argument, especially given that even most Christians have rejected this archaic notion of "patriarchy" as the dominant form of social relations. The modern nuclear family is not patriarchal in this sense at all. This is more akin to a bizarre form of feudalism, in which the woman is the property of the man. I'm certain there are many heterosexual couples who would be rightfully insulted by the notion that this is the meaning of "marriage."
Exactly. And who says hetero couples are any better at "family" than anyone else? There's no demonstrable relation between heterosexual marriage and a "stable social environment for future citizens."
Before you bother to reply, bother to check the statistics on same sax relationships.
He's right you know - studies have shown that you have a lot more joy in different-sax relationships. When you have an alto and a tenor, there is harmony, but two altos or two tenors is a recipe for discord....
In fact, we'll show you how to get even more publicity, once you purchase our exclusive list of 76 million VoIP addresses! Act now and get 128 million email addresses with DNS records today!!
first week of October, 2001, as soon as it became apparent that bin Laden was behind 9-11.
It became apparent that bin Laden was behind 9-11 at about 9:00 AM on September 11th, and everybody who was the least bit familiar with bin Laden at the time knew it immediately when that second plane went crashing into the towers. Unfortunately, there were far too few such folks on hand in the Bush Administration at the time, and none of them among Bush's pets, the neocons....
The counterattack on bin Laden and al Qaeda's bases should not have even waited until September 12th, much less October 7th, giving them almost a month to hide, regroup, and prepare for the US attack. By that point most of the bases we bombed were empty. And that was an action where Bush could have taken the initiative without Congressional approval and have been totally confident that Congress would back him up when the time came. Hell, the UN would back it up! We had been hit hard and everyone knew it, and nobody would have begrudged us a quick and brutal revenge. We could have destroyed the bases, possibly getting bin Laden, pummelled the Taliban, and split, not winning us any friends but also not pissing off the entire Muslim world.
Instead, Bush waited to launch a huge nation-building adventure in Afghanistan, giving the Taliban a chance to prepare and letting the images of 9-11 and the world sympathy evoked fade. And he held back the big guns for his little adventure in Iraq, which has now become a terrible quagmire with disturbing images daily while the image of 9-11 is just a distant memory for most of the world.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not arguing for greater Presidential power; I just don't think Bush was competent and intelligent enough to use the Presidential power he already had. He doesn't need any more; he just should have stood up and made the right decisions at the right time. He didn't have the knowledge and understanding of al Qaeda at the time, and the only person on his staff who did was someone he wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to. Most of the people he listened to were (and still are) obsessed with their bizarre fantasy of remapping the entire Middle East.
1. yeah I do settle for that, but of course just about every other os x program in the world does the command-up and -down trick. It would be nice for camino to be consistent.
2. Safari does, actually, but who cares. We're talking about Camino. I would like for camino to be useful browsing scads of text files. It would just be more useful that way. There should at least be a "hidden pref" for this feature, but I can't find any information about it. Seems like it would be frightfully easy to implement. As with #1, I have sent this feature request to the camino developers a couple of times, but have not heard any reply or indication they would do anything about it (to be fair, I don't browse the camino development email lists and stuff; perhaps it has been discussed.)
3. They don't do it but that's not the point. They should. It's an easy menu item and it would be no problem to implement, since you can already do it by editing files. The problem is, who wants to memorize user-agent strings? These are simple and don't change, so why not code them in?
I use Camino as my main browser. My only beefs with it at the moment are:
Command-up arrow and command-down arrow do nothing. These should take you to the top and bottom of the document as they do in every other OS X program. I've filed bug reports on this since.7 but they get ignored.
When viewing a.txt file, there is no option for Camino to word-wrap the text. This makes it very difficult to read text files that are not word wrapped. (perhaps someone knows a way to solve this one?)
Camino should have an easy to use user-agent preference so that you can just click on a menu to send a different user-agent string. I know how to edit the file but I don't remember user-agent strings and rather than go through all that trouble I'd just as soon ignore the web page that needs it.
Why were you surprised at the porn heading?
on
iMac G5 Porn Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Funny
This is what you wrote:
But carrying on looking at the box, it seems very tightly fitted.... I wish the guy could show some more important images... like how well it sucks.... But definately a nice thin client is very appreciated.... my sweaty feet... I give it 4 out of 5....sweaty feet... ass. But thin clients are the way to go for the home. So much easier to move around and easy... to knock [up].:)
Quite a few of them have. Probably not enough to change the fact that the majority vote republican, but still, quite a few will be voting for Kerry this year. Read Gen. Hackworth's essay in the latest issue of Playboy. Go ahead, read it. Now you can truthfully say you subscribe for the articles:)
What drugs are you on? There was no meeting in Czechoslovakia, at least the CIA doesn't believe there was, and they investigated it. There have been no WMD found, and no evidence of the Iraqis moving them around. You're making this stuff up! Or maybe you heard it on Rush Limbaugh. What it has to do with Bush neglecting his guard duty, which the White House has admitted, I don't know. Your sig is the best though:
Kerry/Edwards 2004! We'll make Socialism work this time!
That's right! I heard Edwards was calling Lloyd Bentsen to discuss nationalizing all private property and installing the dictatorship of the proletariat. And Kerry can't wait for the withering away of the state!
Man, get your head out of your ass. You don't have to be a moron to be conservative.
Yes it is. The White House admitted that Bush skipped out on the physical. They released documents that show it. The CBS document controversy has overshadowed these facts, which makes you wonder who created the fake documents to begin with.
and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.
Also not correct.
The poster should have said "nobody credible is denying."
Actually, the campaign issue
Actually, there is no campaign issue here. Bush skipped out on his guard duty 30 years ago because he was doing drugs and would have failed the physical. It's an issue of historical fact but hardly a campaign issue, and the Kerry campaign is silly for going after what happened 30 years ago when Bush is doing so much to foul things up right now.
CBS made a huge error here, and somebody will likely lose their job over it. And they should make a significant effort to publicize who forged the documents and why. But this shouldn't be a campaign issue at all.
Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings
No; Ben Barnes is admitting that he pulled strings. The admission diminishes his own character as well, so it is difficult to see this as some kind of self-serving scheme. In any case, Bush's absence from the guard is well documented by documents the White House released and does not dispute.
The Democrats are wasting their time with this. Everybody knows Bush and Cheney ducked out on their country during Vietnam, and the people who don't want to believe that it's true are not going to be convinced by a document, real or not. The historians will sort the truth out. The campaign would do well to focus on what's actually happening today rather than looking at 30 years ago.
Ummm, those are countries. And they do pay attention to international law. They might not obey it, and like many countries (e.g. US) they may flout it whenever it suits them, but they certainly pay attention to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. just like this dude.
So what about non-Christian or non-patriarchal heterosexual marriage? According to your definition, there should be no reason for a man and a woman who don't believe in or want to further "patriarchy" to want to marry either. It's a bizarre argument, especially given that even most Christians have rejected this archaic notion of "patriarchy" as the dominant form of social relations. The modern nuclear family is not patriarchal in this sense at all. This is more akin to a bizarre form of feudalism, in which the woman is the property of the man. I'm certain there are many heterosexual couples who would be rightfully insulted by the notion that this is the meaning of "marriage."
Exactly. And who says hetero couples are any better at "family" than anyone else? There's no demonstrable relation between heterosexual marriage and a "stable social environment for future citizens."
He's right you know - studies have shown that you have a lot more joy in different-sax relationships. When you have an alto and a tenor, there is harmony, but two altos or two tenors is a recipe for discord....
I'm too lazy to even click that link. Can't you just explain it?
In fact, we'll show you how to get even more publicity, once you purchase our exclusive list of 76 million VoIP addresses! Act now and get 128 million email addresses with DNS records today!!
Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?
It became apparent that bin Laden was behind 9-11 at about 9:00 AM on September 11th, and everybody who was the least bit familiar with bin Laden at the time knew it immediately when that second plane went crashing into the towers. Unfortunately, there were far too few such folks on hand in the Bush Administration at the time, and none of them among Bush's pets, the neocons....
The counterattack on bin Laden and al Qaeda's bases should not have even waited until September 12th, much less October 7th, giving them almost a month to hide, regroup, and prepare for the US attack. By that point most of the bases we bombed were empty. And that was an action where Bush could have taken the initiative without Congressional approval and have been totally confident that Congress would back him up when the time came. Hell, the UN would back it up! We had been hit hard and everyone knew it, and nobody would have begrudged us a quick and brutal revenge. We could have destroyed the bases, possibly getting bin Laden, pummelled the Taliban, and split, not winning us any friends but also not pissing off the entire Muslim world.
Instead, Bush waited to launch a huge nation-building adventure in Afghanistan, giving the Taliban a chance to prepare and letting the images of 9-11 and the world sympathy evoked fade. And he held back the big guns for his little adventure in Iraq, which has now become a terrible quagmire with disturbing images daily while the image of 9-11 is just a distant memory for most of the world.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not arguing for greater Presidential power; I just don't think Bush was competent and intelligent enough to use the Presidential power he already had. He doesn't need any more; he just should have stood up and made the right decisions at the right time. He didn't have the knowledge and understanding of al Qaeda at the time, and the only person on his staff who did was someone he wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to. Most of the people he listened to were (and still are) obsessed with their bizarre fantasy of remapping the entire Middle East.
2. Safari does, actually, but who cares. We're talking about Camino. I would like for camino to be useful browsing scads of text files. It would just be more useful that way. There should at least be a "hidden pref" for this feature, but I can't find any information about it. Seems like it would be frightfully easy to implement. As with #1, I have sent this feature request to the camino developers a couple of times, but have not heard any reply or indication they would do anything about it (to be fair, I don't browse the camino development email lists and stuff; perhaps it has been discussed.)
3. They don't do it but that's not the point. They should. It's an easy menu item and it would be no problem to implement, since you can already do it by editing files. The problem is, who wants to memorize user-agent strings? These are simple and don't change, so why not code them in?
It was just in Spanish.
So your country's CEO was indicted on fraud?
It was called "Napster."
Why? he'll never ask for a raise, he won't need an office, and you could use his stapler whenever you want.
They actually were going to go with this slogan, but they were worried about being sued by Bare Bones.
After all, it will say "Hacked by Chinese" on the home page.
Quite a few of them have. Probably not enough to change the fact that the majority vote republican, but still, quite a few will be voting for Kerry this year. Read Gen. Hackworth's essay in the latest issue of Playboy. Go ahead, read it. Now you can truthfully say you subscribe for the articles :)
Kerry/Edwards 2004! We'll make Socialism work this time!
That's right! I heard Edwards was calling Lloyd Bentsen to discuss nationalizing all private property and installing the dictatorship of the proletariat. And Kerry can't wait for the withering away of the state!
Man, get your head out of your ass. You don't have to be a moron to be conservative.
Yes it is. The White House admitted that Bush skipped out on the physical. They released documents that show it. The CBS document controversy has overshadowed these facts, which makes you wonder who created the fake documents to begin with.
and certainly nobody is denying the content is true.
Also not correct.
The poster should have said "nobody credible is denying."
Actually, the campaign issue
Actually, there is no campaign issue here. Bush skipped out on his guard duty 30 years ago because he was doing drugs and would have failed the physical. It's an issue of historical fact but hardly a campaign issue, and the Kerry campaign is silly for going after what happened 30 years ago when Bush is doing so much to foul things up right now.
CBS made a huge error here, and somebody will likely lose their job over it. And they should make a significant effort to publicize who forged the documents and why. But this shouldn't be a campaign issue at all.
Ben Barnes has been alleging that somebody pulled strings
No; Ben Barnes is admitting that he pulled strings. The admission diminishes his own character as well, so it is difficult to see this as some kind of self-serving scheme. In any case, Bush's absence from the guard is well documented by documents the White House released and does not dispute.
The Democrats are wasting their time with this. Everybody knows Bush and Cheney ducked out on their country during Vietnam, and the people who don't want to believe that it's true are not going to be convinced by a document, real or not. The historians will sort the truth out. The campaign would do well to focus on what's actually happening today rather than looking at 30 years ago.
The phone call is free, but it costs $250 or so to get onto the grounds where the phone is.
Yeah, but it gives you a gigabyte of bookmarks :)
You don't start a grammar war just by using the proper form.
my Linux boxen.
Now, sir, you have your war!
Ummm, those are countries. And they do pay attention to international law. They might not obey it, and like many countries (e.g. US) they may flout it whenever it suits them, but they certainly pay attention to it.
That was a close one; I almost had to read the article.