First of all, two of the Judges on the 3 judge panel were Democrat appointments.
So what? Was their map unfair? Arguably no. As you said they took the Senate map, which also would have been drawn up by the GOP, so they weren't just being partisan.
Fourth, even though Texas voted more then 60% Republican in 2000, 17 out of our 32 seats went to Democrats.
Actually it was 56%. And why should a party that got 56% of the vote get over 70% of the seats?
If anyone doubted/.'s slant, this parent is proof of it.
You are so full of shit. One poster speaks for all of the Slashdot admins and all of the several hundered thousand people who have accounts here?
They should rename that to the Unfair tax plan, because that's exactly what it is. The income tax is far better than a sales tax alone, because the more money you make, the more you are either directly or indirectly benefiting from the taxes that the public pays. So its only fair that you pay more in as well.
The point is that the Republicans didn't need Khruschev to write them two letters to start blaming everything on Clinton. If the GOP weren't whores to the religious (Christian) right, they'd probably be consulting voodoo doctors to see if Clinton could be blamed for all the hurricanes hitting Florida this year.
You can't call yourself a democracy if 50% of the adult populatiuon is barred from voting.
Pfft. I'll be impressed when feminism is about true equality rather than just about gaining rights and privledges for women while *convienintly* forgetting to take on equal responsiblities as well. Women don't work as much as men, are perfectly happy to let men work all the dirty and dangerous jobs (95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men), bitch about how they don't get paid as much for 40 hours a week (with years taken off work to raise kids) as male workaholics do for 60+ hour weeks, and last but not least aren't subject to the draft.
The only highly rated comment is bitching about the same damn thing the parent is - the non-existent mass of fickle Slashdotters who are bitching about Jackson making two different versions of the movie. Stick that in your cock and smoke it.
You should be Bush's press secretary if he gets reelected, so you can bitch about things that no one is complaining about.
You seem to think you are very clever by pointing out that Jackson announced two different versions long before release. Well guess what Scooter, did you honestly think we didn't know this already?
STFU and go back to begging to be allowed into your local Mensa chapter with your pseudo-cleverness.
When credits roll, you have time to digest and go through the movie experience, relax, and reflect, while still maintaining the 'mood' that the movie has created.
And what is preventing you from doing this on your way out to the car along with the rest of the non-anal-retentive audience?
You could at least wait through the initial credits sequence
Why? Should we take notes on who the 10 co-executive producers are?
Look, if you want to hang around to the end of the credits, that's your business. But don't put on airs of superiority just because your time is so worthless that you have to sit around through a list of a thousand names of people that are completely irrelevant to your existence.
Yeah, he sure kicked China's ass when they were holding one of our Air Force crews hostage, wanting an apology for a crash that was clearly the fault of the Chinese military. And North Korea is sure quakin in their boots right now.
It was a juvenile, nasty prank that was intended to wreck Bush's international relations with many allies right off the bat and it worked like a charm. Part of the reason why foreigners hate Bush is because Democrats have engaged in international relations sabotage during this presidency.
Sounds like a lie (aka perjury). This is the thing that Bill Clinton was impeached for: not having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but lying to a judge
Wrong! He asked the court to define "sexual relations", as the prosecution wanted to define it as just about anything under the sun. The court defined "sexual relations" to mean "sexual intercourse". As blow jobs are not intercourse, Clinton did not lie. As a matter of fact, if he had said yes, that would have been a lie, as oral sex is not intercourse. Suck on that one for a while.
And secondly, even if he did lie, a lie is not perjury if its not relevant to the case at hand. Whether or not Clinton had consensual sex was irrelevant to the question of whether or not he harrased Paula Jones. And this isn't just my opinion, that's what the judge ruled. So regaurdless, no perjury was commited.
and potentially obstructing justice (having Monica Lewinsky lie about their affair in an attempt to escape punishment for his actions with Paula Jones).
Wrong! Even if he did ask her to lie, just what justice would that be obstructing? And the only thing that's on record as far as him suggesting to her what to say, was that he didn't harrass her (Monica).
However, the collosal failing of the judge was to allow a definition of sex that *excluded* oral sex!
If you knew this already, then wtf are you saying Clinton committed perjury when you already know that he did not?
Perhaps, though, I would even agree that the impeachment was motivated by an extreme dislike for Bill Clinton's character.
It was the only motivation, and it started before Clinton was even an official candidate for President. The GOP couldn't smear Clinton as a big spending liberal, since he had centrist policies. They couldn't smear him as an elite out of touch liberal, as he was from a rural state and spent a great deal of time on rural issues. The only thing left for them to do was to go after him personally, and that didn't stop after he was elected, or re-elected.
Think about it for a second. The GOP spent tens of millions of taxpayer money on countless congressional investigations, two independant consols, and the worst dirt they could come up with was forcing him to make misleading statments about his sex life, which was nobody'sfuckingbusiness as long as there was no evidence that criminal acts took place? And what's that called when you try to force someone into commiting a crime? Oh yeah, entrapment, and that's illegal.
The whole scandal was a national disgrace all right - but it was only the GOP that behaved disgracefully. If there was any justice, Ken Starr and a bunch of Republican Congressmen would be sitting in jail right now after being convicted of malicious prosecution.
This is why they drafted the Defense of Marriage Amendment - to remove all doubt, as they say.
Funny how all this "defense of marriage" jazz starts and stops with homosexuals.
Laws banning certain sexual practices - like the Texas Sodomy Law - have been used as a possible reason to ban gay marriages
So tell Senator Santorum that that gays will just have to engage in oral sex. And send him the videos.
On the other hand, a lot of states did ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (the one that forbids laws discriminating between genders)
Feh. On a side note, I *would* actually like to see a gender equality amendment, but one that also specifies equal responsibility. Femenism has never been about equality, its been about getting women the same "rights" and "privledges" that the supposed male patriachy has enjoyed, without any of the responsiblities. I've never seen N.O.W. march on the capitol to demand that girls have to register for the draft when they turn 18. They talk about "glass ceilings", perfectly content to let men take all the dirty, dangerous jobs as well. Over 90% of workplace deaths are suffered by men, and I've never seen Gloria Steinem insist that we even up that statistic. And so on.
As if that would have anything to do with the price of rice in China. This is just another example of what they did with Clarence Tomas: find a very conservative member of a minority that votes primarily for the Democratic party, then parade him around around while they make a lot of talk about they want to be inclusive. Then they have the chutzpa to accuse the Democrats of not supprting minorities when they object to the candidates, ignoring the fact that it's their polices that are objectionable, not their race.
No, its not, its another boneheaded argument for term limits, but then all term limit arguments are. It wouldn't make any difference if the senate was made up entirely of freshmen, this would still be a blatant power grab by the majority party.
The Democrats are going to HAVE to forget this treatment, if we are to be One Nation. Tit for tat will just make things worse.
Except the Democrats *have* been playing nice for at least a couple decades now, and have been taking it up the ass for it. Neither this election nor the last election should have been remotely close.
Nevermind that its obvious to any special needs child who rides a short bus that wildly different methods of voting will of course have differing methods of determining what vote was cast. The origional count had just as much inequity if not more than the recount. SCOTUS was full of shit on this one.
You know, the ones that suddenly decided the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed because, like, it's a prayer or something since those two words are in it.
Oh, sure, because there's nothing wrong with having very young children state this nation is "under god"! This isn't a case of activist judges, its a case of "what the fuck took them so long?"
And the ones that decided to go against what the law states, and let gays marry anyway--rather than let the laws be changed first.
Bzzt! They ruled that the law was against the state constitution.
Yeah, those are great. We don't need some stupid Conservatives (with a capital C) to come in and keep things in line!
Too bad Steve Jobs is a Democrat, or the GOP could hire him on to spread a Neocon Reality Distortion Field.
Because I didn't say that. I said when we determine that Canada is an imminent threat, the the US will invade. Why is this such a hard concept for you?
This may be a surprise to you, but Sadamm wasn't co-operating.
If he wasn't cooperating at all, where's all his WMD's?
Do you wait until the last second to begin warplanning, or do you have the plans ready if you need them?
I'm sure the U.S. has plans to invade any country, including allies like France and England, if they were to be taken over by crazies at some point. But we don't act on those plans unless the evidence is there. And while there was plenty of evidence that Saddam was an evil dictator, the evidence that he was in possession of WMD's and was a signifigant threat was not. Bush's reason for invading was the latter, not the former. You'd think after Vietnam we wouldn't get involved in a war unless we were damn sure it was the right thing to do.
One that I don't want it to have to update by itself if I decide to put 3 gigs of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd on it. iTunes would already have the id3 tags.
And it seems relatively bizzare to me that someone who uses Linux and software to enable file transfer queing would suddenly take a principled stance on not using 3rd party software for an iPod.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the essence of freedom.
No, its the essence of greed and selfishness, because you benefit from these things but don't want to pay for them.
First of all, two of the Judges on the 3 judge panel were Democrat appointments.
/.'s slant, this parent is proof of it.
So what? Was their map unfair? Arguably no. As you said they took the Senate map, which also would have been drawn up by the GOP, so they weren't just being partisan.
Fourth, even though Texas voted more then 60% Republican in 2000, 17 out of our 32 seats went to Democrats.
Actually it was 56%. And why should a party that got 56% of the vote get over 70% of the seats?
If anyone doubted
You are so full of shit. One poster speaks for all of the Slashdot admins and all of the several hundered thousand people who have accounts here?
They should rename that to the Unfair tax plan, because that's exactly what it is. The income tax is far better than a sales tax alone, because the more money you make, the more you are either directly or indirectly benefiting from the taxes that the public pays. So its only fair that you pay more in as well.
So all atheists are immoral, then?
I've yet to meet an athiest that claims to be a born again Christian.
Duh.
I Have a full 20 gig iPod that I have filled with ripped CD's I own.
Thats nice. If you bought a WMA only device, you'd have to re-purchase whatever music you'd want to listen to, which was the PP's point.
The point is that the Republicans didn't need Khruschev to write them two letters to start blaming everything on Clinton. If the GOP weren't whores to the religious (Christian) right, they'd probably be consulting voodoo doctors to see if Clinton could be blamed for all the hurricanes hitting Florida this year.
You can't call yourself a democracy if 50% of the adult populatiuon is barred from voting.
Pfft. I'll be impressed when feminism is about true equality rather than just about gaining rights and privledges for women while *convienintly* forgetting to take on equal responsiblities as well. Women don't work as much as men, are perfectly happy to let men work all the dirty and dangerous jobs (95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men), bitch about how they don't get paid as much for 40 hours a week (with years taken off work to raise kids) as male workaholics do for 60+ hour weeks, and last but not least aren't subject to the draft.
The only highly rated comment is bitching about the same damn thing the parent is - the non-existent mass of fickle Slashdotters who are bitching about Jackson making two different versions of the movie. Stick that in your cock and smoke it.
Enjoying the music? Basking in the aftermath? You masturbate in the tub while listening to Kenny G, don't you?
You should be Bush's press secretary if he gets reelected, so you can bitch about things that no one is complaining about.
You seem to think you are very clever by pointing out that Jackson announced two different versions long before release. Well guess what Scooter, did you honestly think we didn't know this already?
STFU and go back to begging to be allowed into your local Mensa chapter with your pseudo-cleverness.
When credits roll, you have time to digest and go through the movie experience, relax, and reflect, while still maintaining the 'mood' that the movie has created.
And what is preventing you from doing this on your way out to the car along with the rest of the non-anal-retentive audience?
You could at least wait through the initial credits sequence
Why? Should we take notes on who the 10 co-executive producers are?
Look, if you want to hang around to the end of the credits, that's your business. But don't put on airs of superiority just because your time is so worthless that you have to sit around through a list of a thousand names of people that are completely irrelevant to your existence.
Bush is a hard-liner and won't back down.
Yeah, he sure kicked China's ass when they were holding one of our Air Force crews hostage, wanting an apology for a crash that was clearly the fault of the Chinese military. And North Korea is sure quakin in their boots right now.
It was a juvenile, nasty prank that was intended to wreck Bush's international relations with many allies right off the bat and it worked like a charm. Part of the reason why foreigners hate Bush is because Democrats have engaged in international relations sabotage during this presidency.
Cough, *bullshit*, cough.
Wow, so much crap to debunk, so little time...
Sounds like a lie (aka perjury). This is the thing that Bill Clinton was impeached for: not having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but lying to a judge
Wrong! He asked the court to define "sexual relations", as the prosecution wanted to define it as just about anything under the sun. The court defined "sexual relations" to mean "sexual intercourse". As blow jobs are not intercourse, Clinton did not lie. As a matter of fact, if he had said yes, that would have been a lie, as oral sex is not intercourse. Suck on that one for a while.
And secondly, even if he did lie, a lie is not perjury if its not relevant to the case at hand. Whether or not Clinton had consensual sex was irrelevant to the question of whether or not he harrased Paula Jones. And this isn't just my opinion, that's what the judge ruled. So regaurdless, no perjury was commited.
and potentially obstructing justice (having Monica Lewinsky lie about their affair in an attempt to escape punishment for his actions with Paula Jones).
Wrong! Even if he did ask her to lie, just what justice would that be obstructing? And the only thing that's on record as far as him suggesting to her what to say, was that he didn't harrass her (Monica).
However, the collosal failing of the judge was to allow a definition of sex that *excluded* oral sex!
If you knew this already, then wtf are you saying Clinton committed perjury when you already know that he did not?
Perhaps, though, I would even agree that the impeachment was motivated by an extreme dislike for Bill Clinton's character.
It was the only motivation, and it started before Clinton was even an official candidate for President. The GOP couldn't smear Clinton as a big spending liberal, since he had centrist policies. They couldn't smear him as an elite out of touch liberal, as he was from a rural state and spent a great deal of time on rural issues. The only thing left for them to do was to go after him personally, and that didn't stop after he was elected, or re-elected.
Think about it for a second. The GOP spent tens of millions of taxpayer money on countless congressional investigations, two independant consols, and the worst dirt they could come up with was forcing him to make misleading statments about his sex life, which was nobody'sfuckingbusiness as long as there was no evidence that criminal acts took place? And what's that called when you try to force someone into commiting a crime? Oh yeah, entrapment, and that's illegal.
The whole scandal was a national disgrace all right - but it was only the GOP that behaved disgracefully. If there was any justice, Ken Starr and a bunch of Republican Congressmen would be sitting in jail right now after being convicted of malicious prosecution.
This is why they drafted the Defense of Marriage Amendment - to remove all doubt, as they say.
Funny how all this "defense of marriage" jazz starts and stops with homosexuals.
Laws banning certain sexual practices - like the Texas Sodomy Law - have been used as a possible reason to ban gay marriages
So tell Senator Santorum that that gays will just have to engage in oral sex. And send him the videos.
On the other hand, a lot of states did ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (the one that forbids laws discriminating between genders)
Feh. On a side note, I *would* actually like to see a gender equality amendment, but one that also specifies equal responsibility. Femenism has never been about equality, its been about getting women the same "rights" and "privledges" that the supposed male patriachy has enjoyed, without any of the responsiblities. I've never seen N.O.W. march on the capitol to demand that girls have to register for the draft when they turn 18. They talk about "glass ceilings", perfectly content to let men take all the dirty, dangerous jobs as well. Over 90% of workplace deaths are suffered by men, and I've never seen Gloria Steinem insist that we even up that statistic. And so on.
Buy nonvoting shares?
What part of ND? :)
a pack of wild dogs
Same thing happened in Fargo a couple of years ago...cops were called and the shot all of 'em.
Nah, just back him up with a couple of Daleks, one for the basement and one for upstairs.
As if that would have anything to do with the price of rice in China. This is just another example of what they did with Clarence Tomas: find a very conservative member of a minority that votes primarily for the Democratic party, then parade him around around while they make a lot of talk about they want to be inclusive. Then they have the chutzpa to accuse the Democrats of not supprting minorities when they object to the candidates, ignoring the fact that it's their polices that are objectionable, not their race.
Another excellent argument for term limits.
No, its not, its another boneheaded argument for term limits, but then all term limit arguments are. It wouldn't make any difference if the senate was made up entirely of freshmen, this would still be a blatant power grab by the majority party.
The Democrats are going to HAVE to forget this treatment, if we are to be One Nation. Tit for tat will just make things worse.
Except the Democrats *have* been playing nice for at least a couple decades now, and have been taking it up the ass for it. Neither this election nor the last election should have been remotely close.
Nevermind that its obvious to any special needs child who rides a short bus that wildly different methods of voting will of course have differing methods of determining what vote was cast. The origional count had just as much inequity if not more than the recount. SCOTUS was full of shit on this one.
You know, the ones that suddenly decided the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed because, like, it's a prayer or something since those two words are in it.
Oh, sure, because there's nothing wrong with having very young children state this nation is "under god"! This isn't a case of activist judges, its a case of "what the fuck took them so long?"
And the ones that decided to go against what the law states, and let gays marry anyway--rather than let the laws be changed first.
Bzzt! They ruled that the law was against the state constitution.
Yeah, those are great. We don't need some stupid Conservatives (with a capital C) to come in and keep things in line!
Too bad Steve Jobs is a Democrat, or the GOP could hire him on to spread a Neocon Reality Distortion Field.
Because I didn't say that. I said when we determine that Canada is an imminent threat, the the US will invade. Why is this such a hard concept for you?
Are you English or retarded? You said "Waiting until a country is an imminent threat is a bad idea." Not to mention the fact that you can't seem to decide if you are talking about the first Gulf War or the recent invasion of Iraq.
This may be a surprise to you, but Sadamm wasn't co-operating.
If he wasn't cooperating at all, where's all his WMD's?
Do you wait until the last second to begin warplanning, or do you have the plans ready if you need them?
I'm sure the U.S. has plans to invade any country, including allies like France and England, if they were to be taken over by crazies at some point. But we don't act on those plans unless the evidence is there. And while there was plenty of evidence that Saddam was an evil dictator, the evidence that he was in possession of WMD's and was a signifigant threat was not. Bush's reason for invading was the latter, not the former. You'd think after Vietnam we wouldn't get involved in a war unless we were damn sure it was the right thing to do.
The iRiver also has a database you know...
One that I don't want it to have to update by itself if I decide to put 3 gigs of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd on it. iTunes would already have the id3 tags.
And it seems relatively bizzare to me that someone who uses Linux and software to enable file transfer queing would suddenly take a principled stance on not using 3rd party software for an iPod.