Oh, I will. I want to make sure they look upon Obama as more than some mere flawed individual struggling against great odds, for he sets a dangerous precedent if we are to assume we can protect the rights of one minority while forsaking another's. What if we had elected a hay president are you telling me we would stand by while we called his partner his civil union butt buddy? Already I have setup in Photoshop the words "Obama Biden Bigots" and I will soon see how much it costs to print up a few thousand bumper stickers.
By the way, don't set up a straw man about me crying myself to sleep at night over this, as I am a healthy heterosexual who just happens to know a pair of bigots like Biden and Obama when I see them.
Biden and Obama are bigots about gay marriage. --- note the period
Look, I would rather befriend someone through deliberate debate and discourse than risk bloodying myself in a public assault of barbs and wits. So if I am being cruel, abstruse or the something even more confounding in my manner of speech, I duly apologize. That being said, Obama and everyone who does not support gay marriage is a bigot.
I do blame self-destructive behavior on lack of the American public to show recognition that all people's private commitments to each other as a devoted couple when made public should be shown the same amount of respect as any other. To show difference in treating their commitments by changing the nomenclature is to reveal the filthy prejudice, petty ignorance and other atavistic concerns that disease one's being. Those that feign tolerance to others to gain support for their sickly god on a stick. The Abrahamic religions' death throes would not be complete without reaching out to tear out with disgust and division anything they can muster enough collective hatred to. Seems like the only thing the conservative folk of Arabia and America agree on is who they hate the most besides each other, the homosexual.
I called him out because he is a constitutional lawyer and he knows that civil unions will not stand the equal protection and separate but equal decisions by the supreme court; so is he lying to get gay marriage enacted and to get elected or is he telling the truth and he believes that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as he does? So he is either a liar or a bigot. I would rather a politician be a liar I suppose. Do you prefer liars?
No, he states he opposes gay marriage entirely and only supports civil unions that is not throwing bones to the bigots that is being a bigot. Separate but equal will not stand and he knows that, everyone does. Even the most stalwart of the Christian fundies knows that gay marriage is coming and the only weapon they have against it is to incite hatred and ignorance. The church groups did the same exact thing with interracial marriage and they quoted scripture, raised money and fought interracial marriage in the courts for decades. Postponing the completion of the civil rights laws taking effect until the 70's in all states.
He has the same opinion McCain had and Biden has the same policy as Palin. A bigot is a bigot.
This country struggled very deeply with civil rights abuses against indigenous peoples, Africans, Mexicans, Asians, Irish, Germans and Women for generations because people kept choosing the lesser of two evils. Old Hickory was elected to deal with the "Indian Problem" and Bush Jr was in part elected to deal with the "gay marriage problem". Read his positions and who supported him after he said them. Obama is hanging now with the same crowd.
I think someone is a coward who speaks so carefully on issues that he says nothing at all. Some would call that just being a good politician but to me when those issues deal with human rights I think of that person as a danger to a free society. To not address this issue so that he may get some other favored legislation through does not excuse his inability to deal with this in a forthright and honest manner. Obama is categorically a bigot because he will not acknowledge the honest want of two homosexual folk to be married in the United States as equal in worth to two heterosexual folk. I don't care if he bases this from deeply-held religious convictions or for reasons of political expedience, it is shameful to celebrate the advancement of one's own civil rights while denying others.
Lets start with a definition we can agree on. I am not typing out the OED version so lets try.
Bigot Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.]
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder and believe. --Macaulay.
from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Ok, so lets try the belief that one is unquestionably right in matters of religion. There are millions of religious adherents today who support gay marriage between two consenting adults, there are entire congregations who support it and there are entire religious organizations devoted to it. To deny them the right to marry because of a matter of religious principle is bigotry. See above.
Are you attempting to imply moral relativism as a mode of rationalizing your own bigotry or that of others? Moral relativism as a philosophy attempts to rationalize the exclusion of human rights because of some cultural, social or political designation. This designation is usually made so that the group being excluded can be stigmatized as "other" and than further dehumanized. Do I need to spell out to where that can lead? Remember, Rome almost stamped out Christianity before it was used as a tool to win a war.
As a human I believe that human rights should be inclusive for all and I will fight against anyone who attempts to subvert that. In that vein I am also vociferously pro-life but not because of any religious conviction but the belief that human rights that require one to arbitrarily demarcate the boundary at which human life and therein rights begin is exclusive. The day will come when we have the ability to use a artificial womb to bring any child to term regardless of the state of its development and the women who aborted their children will be remembered sadly with suspicions of their motives like the women of Sparta who left their children to die of exposure.
What are you talking about, the Federal Government has intervened in this matter before. I do not "believe that gay people are somehow defective" and to suggest so is an insult and a straw man.
There are several people that I consider to be family that I can't legally marry. This is the norm, not the exception.
I have no idea what this has to do with what I was saying and I am not exactly sure I am parsing the meaning from it correctly. Laws against marrying cousins and such were made to prevent serious genetic abnormalities from occurring and to make individuals more likely to have healthy physiological and psychological development. If you want to marry several people I am ambivalent on polygamy. Can you give me a convincing argument?
He is not as much a bigot as the ever benighted Bush but he is not as enlightened as some would believe. I would rather we strip him of his saintliness in public now than later. Some people are completely crazed about this man have such expectations that could not be realized without revolution.
I am not going to argue tautologies with you because I find people who argue in such a manner usually irrational. The statement I made that you refer to does have some shades of gray and if I had time I would attempt to source some material to back up my hypothesis but unfortunately there has not been enough data collected on differing rates of STDs, drug overdoses and the like in the gay community before and after marriage laws yet. My hypothesis stands though and I will not proffer a new one because of your objections. However, there is a number of well-established studies showing that the more conservative one is the more likely they will get divorced. So the question is should we legislate against Evangelical Christians getting married because they have the highest divorce rates in the country? It would better protect the sanctity of marriage than preventing two random homosexual folk from marrying.
He is beholden to the constitution, he is a trained constitutional lawyer after all and separate but equal will never stand scrutiny and he knows that. He is playing to the bigotry of others to retain national goodwill to enact his policies and that is as unacceptable now as when they had separate but equal black classrooms, army units and water fountains and white politicians enforced the prejudices of the majority to the detriment of an entire race for 100 years after the civil war.
What does one hell of a prayer mean when the person giving it has hate in their hearts? My lesbian friends got married in California after being together since Jr High and now they have to spend 10k's of dollars to get their marriage recognized again and Warren helped enact that legislation and there are people like me who will not let history forget that when they are writing his contributions to it. I doubt his prayer will receive more attention than his simple-minded bigotry.
Obama does not support gay marriage 40 years after the last laws banning interracial marriage were repealed. He is two-faced about the issue, he says he wants civil blah-blah-blah that is equivalent to "traditional marriage" when any constitutional lawyer (which he is) knows that would never stand under separate but equal. He made ideological choices while running so he could be elected by a nation with a lot of homophobic folk and he and the nation should be called on it. Standing silently by while a president changes national and international policy without substantial criticism of his actions and policies and the actions and policies of his subordinates is what led us to 2 wars and a recession. A bigot is a bigot.
Acknowledging a bigot is not wizened policy; regardless if you acknowledge rational individuals as well, it is playing to a majority rules mentality and what allowed things like slavery to go in the United States 100 years after Thomas Jefferson attempted to expunge the "most evil device yet created". I know a bigot when I see one and Obama is a bigot.
I am gladdened the sad epoch of George W Bush and his particular brand of wanton cronyism, prideful ignorance and blind ineptitude is at an end. However, I am not at all giving Obama any slack on his bigotry about gay marriage and his choice of Rick Warren as a pastor during the inauguration. Obama and anyone else who thinks they can praise the civil rights accomplishments of gay couples while at the same time denying them the right to a state and federally recognized union for all intents and purposes is as much a bigot as those who denied interracial couples the right to marry. Not only is it a civil rights issue but a public health one as well. The hedonism in the gay community that leads to unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like is exacerbated if not caused in part by denying them the right to unite as a family of their own choosing under the social contract. Marriage and the family unit is the bedrock of civil society to deny anyone the benefit is abhorrent. Shame on you Barrack Obama, shame on you.
I would like to think of my time spent toiling at the keyboard for those long difficult minutes as time spent genuinely reflecting on the state of the industry, you know like Martin Luther pondering his theses before nailing them to the church door. I mean church, tavern and brothel doors were 16th century forums. Too bad only the church postings were archived properly. God, is this going to be archived?
People if you want real breaking science and engineering news try Eureka Alerts, no forum but at least they don't pull shit like this every other week. For the sake of god there isn't even a printable version on 95% of the ad farming websites anymore because they know we would link to it. Who has time to click a page 14 times like a trained seal for a piece of tinned herring? Speaking of herring there is a technically inclined one that does not link to ad farms. Seriously, Slashdot editors if you read this, you know we are all using Adblock Plus, well at least I have ever since your animated banners showed up, do you really think we of all people would tolerate linking to a page like this? I honestly used to look forward to being able to click on your ads after reading the article because they were mostly unobtrusive, often fun and half the time relevant but I am physically incapable of reading something on a page that has animations without frustration and discomfort. I mean who can honestly absorb a significant amount of information that way? It is the Power Point presentation level of discourse, the executive summary level of detail and the blasé attitude from site administrators that their visitors would tolerate something they would not because it sells 1% more ad dollars for 10x the ads that sickens me to the point of loathing and disgust. Grrrr!
At both my jobs and school it is pretty much given that 50% of the people are not even going to show up that day. At least that is the feeling I get from people talking about it, and I am treating it is a 4 day weekend myself. I don't want to be on the road with half the country wasted from celebration.
It is baseless in regards to the production of scientific theory. I agree with you that nebulous qualitative concepts in one era can and often do become definitive quantitative concepts in another era, but it is not scientific until you can incorporate it into a system of other theories. No scientific theory stands alone. These quantitative formulations stand and fall on the merit of their explanatory abilities and the ability to take such explanations and test them. No other system of knowledge is as robust or discriminatory and this leads me to believe that scientific knowledge is a special kind of knowledge that is superior to divine revelation or bullshit conjecture.
I am an engineer not a physicist, but how do you measure something at the plank length when you only have things at the plank length or greater in scale?
Put down that hash pipe you star trek geek, we need to get you some mountain dew stat.
32 dollars for 112 pages double spaced
on
The Zen of SOA
·
· Score: 5, Funny
What is this crap and why should I care? I have more books than I can possibly read in a lifetime and I would wager 90% of them have more meat on their bones than this book. This reminds me of the 90's schlocksellers like the Tao of Pooh and Physics which ruined the topics of both pooh and physics for years to come. Pastafarianism of Perl, now that is a book I would read.
By the way remember this
Circa 1999
You:
Oh, did you read they discovered the top quark at Fermilab?
Random Girl in bar:
No, what is a quark?
You:
{QED QCD explanations in a bar at 1 am. You know in your undergrad heart of hearts this is what women want to hear}
Random Girl in bar:
Sounds like Taoism to me. Have you read the Tao of Physics, it is a great book. It tells about how the Chinese knew about all that stuff thousands of years ago.
You:
What? No they didn't, the standard model of physics is not something that can be partitioned up into dualities for the purposes of serving some crackpot theory.
30 minutes later at home alone waiting for your dial up modem to get online so you can troll for porn on your isp's NNTP servers. Remember when ISP's had their own NNTP servers?
Yeah, see the problem with bigotry isn't the lone bigot, it is the culture out there that facilitates bigotry in the first place. I paraphrase; as I remember it, Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil said that altruism is a disease of the ego and that those who would be allowed to feign altruistic motives to serve their own ends are the ultimate abominations a society can create. All this talk of protecting the "sanctity of marriage" when they typically have the highest divorce rates, is laughable. Don't even get me started comparing conservative heterosexual christian household's sexual abuse rates with those raised in any type of homosexual household. One significant problem with theists as I see it is they believe too much in divine explanations for things that at some point they lose the ability to see the effect of their wills on themselves and others. They are malformed individuals with god complexes who rightfully should be shamed in public for their views that harm others through the veneration of ignorance and the catastrophes that such confused ideology causes. Inexcusably they were allowed to prop up GWB and get him elected without a major news outlet questioning the sanity and judgment of a man who claims to speak to a divine being. Anyone who claims such nonsense is mentally ill.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I will. I want to make sure they look upon Obama as more than some mere flawed individual struggling against great odds, for he sets a dangerous precedent if we are to assume we can protect the rights of one minority while forsaking another's. What if we had elected a hay president are you telling me we would stand by while we called his partner his civil union butt buddy? Already I have setup in Photoshop the words "Obama Biden Bigots" and I will soon see how much it costs to print up a few thousand bumper stickers.
By the way, don't set up a straw man about me crying myself to sleep at night over this, as I am a healthy heterosexual who just happens to know a pair of bigots like Biden and Obama when I see them.
Biden and Obama are bigots about gay marriage. --- note the period
Look, I would rather befriend someone through deliberate debate and discourse than risk bloodying myself in a public assault of barbs and wits. So if I am being cruel, abstruse or the something even more confounding in my manner of speech, I duly apologize. That being said, Obama and everyone who does not support gay marriage is a bigot.
I do blame self-destructive behavior on lack of the American public to show recognition that all people's private commitments to each other as a devoted couple when made public should be shown the same amount of respect as any other. To show difference in treating their commitments by changing the nomenclature is to reveal the filthy prejudice, petty ignorance and other atavistic concerns that disease one's being. Those that feign tolerance to others to gain support for their sickly god on a stick. The Abrahamic religions' death throes would not be complete without reaching out to tear out with disgust and division anything they can muster enough collective hatred to. Seems like the only thing the conservative folk of Arabia and America agree on is who they hate the most besides each other, the homosexual.
I called him out because he is a constitutional lawyer and he knows that civil unions will not stand the equal protection and separate but equal decisions by the supreme court; so is he lying to get gay marriage enacted and to get elected or is he telling the truth and he believes that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as he does? So he is either a liar or a bigot. I would rather a politician be a liar I suppose. Do you prefer liars?
No, he states he opposes gay marriage entirely and only supports civil unions that is not throwing bones to the bigots that is being a bigot. Separate but equal will not stand and he knows that, everyone does. Even the most stalwart of the Christian fundies knows that gay marriage is coming and the only weapon they have against it is to incite hatred and ignorance. The church groups did the same exact thing with interracial marriage and they quoted scripture, raised money and fought interracial marriage in the courts for decades. Postponing the completion of the civil rights laws taking effect until the 70's in all states.
He has the same opinion McCain had and Biden has the same policy as Palin. A bigot is a bigot.
This country struggled very deeply with civil rights abuses against indigenous peoples, Africans, Mexicans, Asians, Irish, Germans and Women for generations because people kept choosing the lesser of two evils. Old Hickory was elected to deal with the "Indian Problem" and Bush Jr was in part elected to deal with the "gay marriage problem". Read his positions and who supported him after he said them. Obama is hanging now with the same crowd. I think someone is a coward who speaks so carefully on issues that he says nothing at all. Some would call that just being a good politician but to me when those issues deal with human rights I think of that person as a danger to a free society. To not address this issue so that he may get some other favored legislation through does not excuse his inability to deal with this in a forthright and honest manner. Obama is categorically a bigot because he will not acknowledge the honest want of two homosexual folk to be married in the United States as equal in worth to two heterosexual folk. I don't care if he bases this from deeply-held religious convictions or for reasons of political expedience, it is shameful to celebrate the advancement of one's own civil rights while denying others.
Lets start with a definition we can agree on. I am not typing out the OED version so lets try.
Bigot
Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.]
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder and believe. --Macaulay.
from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Ok, so lets try the belief that one is unquestionably right in matters of religion. There are millions of religious adherents today who support gay marriage between two consenting adults, there are entire congregations who support it and there are entire religious organizations devoted to it. To deny them the right to marry because of a matter of religious principle is bigotry. See above.
Are you attempting to imply moral relativism as a mode of rationalizing your own bigotry or that of others? Moral relativism as a philosophy attempts to rationalize the exclusion of human rights because of some cultural, social or political designation. This designation is usually made so that the group being excluded can be stigmatized as "other" and than further dehumanized. Do I need to spell out to where that can lead? Remember, Rome almost stamped out Christianity before it was used as a tool to win a war.
As a human I believe that human rights should be inclusive for all and I will fight against anyone who attempts to subvert that. In that vein I am also vociferously pro-life but not because of any religious conviction but the belief that human rights that require one to arbitrarily demarcate the boundary at which human life and therein rights begin is exclusive. The day will come when we have the ability to use a artificial womb to bring any child to term regardless of the state of its development and the women who aborted their children will be remembered sadly with suspicions of their motives like the women of Sparta who left their children to die of exposure.
What are you talking about, the Federal Government has intervened in this matter before. I do not "believe that gay people are somehow defective" and to suggest so is an insult and a straw man.
There are several people that I consider to be family that I can't legally marry. This is the norm, not the exception.
I have no idea what this has to do with what I was saying and I am not exactly sure I am parsing the meaning from it correctly. Laws against marrying cousins and such were made to prevent serious genetic abnormalities from occurring and to make individuals more likely to have healthy physiological and psychological development. If you want to marry several people I am ambivalent on polygamy. Can you give me a convincing argument?
He is not as much a bigot as the ever benighted Bush but he is not as enlightened as some would believe. I would rather we strip him of his saintliness in public now than later. Some people are completely crazed about this man have such expectations that could not be realized without revolution.
I am not going to argue tautologies with you because I find people who argue in such a manner usually irrational. The statement I made that you refer to does have some shades of gray and if I had time I would attempt to source some material to back up my hypothesis but unfortunately there has not been enough data collected on differing rates of STDs, drug overdoses and the like in the gay community before and after marriage laws yet. My hypothesis stands though and I will not proffer a new one because of your objections. However, there is a number of well-established studies showing that the more conservative one is the more likely they will get divorced. So the question is should we legislate against Evangelical Christians getting married because they have the highest divorce rates in the country? It would better protect the sanctity of marriage than preventing two random homosexual folk from marrying.
He is beholden to the constitution, he is a trained constitutional lawyer after all and separate but equal will never stand scrutiny and he knows that. He is playing to the bigotry of others to retain national goodwill to enact his policies and that is as unacceptable now as when they had separate but equal black classrooms, army units and water fountains and white politicians enforced the prejudices of the majority to the detriment of an entire race for 100 years after the civil war.
What does one hell of a prayer mean when the person giving it has hate in their hearts? My lesbian friends got married in California after being together since Jr High and now they have to spend 10k's of dollars to get their marriage recognized again and Warren helped enact that legislation and there are people like me who will not let history forget that when they are writing his contributions to it. I doubt his prayer will receive more attention than his simple-minded bigotry.
Obama does not support gay marriage 40 years after the last laws banning interracial marriage were repealed. He is two-faced about the issue, he says he wants civil blah-blah-blah that is equivalent to "traditional marriage" when any constitutional lawyer (which he is) knows that would never stand under separate but equal. He made ideological choices while running so he could be elected by a nation with a lot of homophobic folk and he and the nation should be called on it. Standing silently by while a president changes national and international policy without substantial criticism of his actions and policies and the actions and policies of his subordinates is what led us to 2 wars and a recession. A bigot is a bigot.
Acknowledging a bigot is not wizened policy; regardless if you acknowledge rational individuals as well, it is playing to a majority rules mentality and what allowed things like slavery to go in the United States 100 years after Thomas Jefferson attempted to expunge the "most evil device yet created". I know a bigot when I see one and Obama is a bigot.
I am gladdened the sad epoch of George W Bush and his particular brand of wanton cronyism, prideful ignorance and blind ineptitude is at an end. However, I am not at all giving Obama any slack on his bigotry about gay marriage and his choice of Rick Warren as a pastor during the inauguration. Obama and anyone else who thinks they can praise the civil rights accomplishments of gay couples while at the same time denying them the right to a state and federally recognized union for all intents and purposes is as much a bigot as those who denied interracial couples the right to marry. Not only is it a civil rights issue but a public health one as well. The hedonism in the gay community that leads to unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like is exacerbated if not caused in part by denying them the right to unite as a family of their own choosing under the social contract. Marriage and the family unit is the bedrock of civil society to deny anyone the benefit is abhorrent. Shame on you Barrack Obama, shame on you.
I would like to think of my time spent toiling at the keyboard for those long difficult minutes as time spent genuinely reflecting on the state of the industry, you know like Martin Luther pondering his theses before nailing them to the church door. I mean church, tavern and brothel doors were 16th century forums. Too bad only the church postings were archived properly. God, is this going to be archived?
People if you want real breaking science and engineering news try Eureka Alerts, no forum but at least they don't pull shit like this every other week. For the sake of god there isn't even a printable version on 95% of the ad farming websites anymore because they know we would link to it. Who has time to click a page 14 times like a trained seal for a piece of tinned herring? Speaking of herring there is a technically inclined one that does not link to ad farms. Seriously, Slashdot editors if you read this, you know we are all using Adblock Plus, well at least I have ever since your animated banners showed up, do you really think we of all people would tolerate linking to a page like this? I honestly used to look forward to being able to click on your ads after reading the article because they were mostly unobtrusive, often fun and half the time relevant but I am physically incapable of reading something on a page that has animations without frustration and discomfort. I mean who can honestly absorb a significant amount of information that way? It is the Power Point presentation level of discourse, the executive summary level of detail and the blasé attitude from site administrators that their visitors would tolerate something they would not because it sells 1% more ad dollars for 10x the ads that sickens me to the point of loathing and disgust. Grrrr!
Every company I have worked for in the past year allowed you to use openoffice, is this happening elsewhere?
Or astrochickens.
At both my jobs and school it is pretty much given that 50% of the people are not even going to show up that day. At least that is the feeling I get from people talking about it, and I am treating it is a 4 day weekend myself. I don't want to be on the road with half the country wasted from celebration.
It is baseless in regards to the production of scientific theory. I agree with you that nebulous qualitative concepts in one era can and often do become definitive quantitative concepts in another era, but it is not scientific until you can incorporate it into a system of other theories. No scientific theory stands alone. These quantitative formulations stand and fall on the merit of their explanatory abilities and the ability to take such explanations and test them. No other system of knowledge is as robust or discriminatory and this leads me to believe that scientific knowledge is a special kind of knowledge that is superior to divine revelation or bullshit conjecture.
I am an engineer not a physicist, but how do you measure something at the plank length when you only have things at the plank length or greater in scale?
Put down that hash pipe you star trek geek, we need to get you some mountain dew stat.
What is this crap and why should I care? I have more books than I can possibly read in a lifetime and I would wager 90% of them have more meat on their bones than this book. This reminds me of the 90's schlocksellers like the Tao of Pooh and Physics which ruined the topics of both pooh and physics for years to come. Pastafarianism of Perl, now that is a book I would read.
By the way remember this
Circa 1999
You:
Oh, did you read they discovered the top quark at Fermilab?
Random Girl in bar:
No, what is a quark?
You:
{QED QCD explanations in a bar at 1 am. You know in your undergrad heart of hearts this is what women want to hear}
Random Girl in bar:
Sounds like Taoism to me. Have you read the Tao of Physics, it is a great book. It tells about how the Chinese knew about all that stuff thousands of years ago.
You:
What? No they didn't, the standard model of physics is not something that can be partitioned up into dualities for the purposes of serving some crackpot theory.
30 minutes later at home alone waiting for your dial up modem to get online so you can troll for porn on your isp's NNTP servers. Remember when ISP's had their own NNTP servers?
Yeah, see the problem with bigotry isn't the lone bigot, it is the culture out there that facilitates bigotry in the first place. I paraphrase; as I remember it, Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil said that altruism is a disease of the ego and that those who would be allowed to feign altruistic motives to serve their own ends are the ultimate abominations a society can create. All this talk of protecting the "sanctity of marriage" when they typically have the highest divorce rates, is laughable. Don't even get me started comparing conservative heterosexual christian household's sexual abuse rates with those raised in any type of homosexual household. One significant problem with theists as I see it is they believe too much in divine explanations for things that at some point they lose the ability to see the effect of their wills on themselves and others. They are malformed individuals with god complexes who rightfully should be shamed in public for their views that harm others through the veneration of ignorance and the catastrophes that such confused ideology causes. Inexcusably they were allowed to prop up GWB and get him elected without a major news outlet questioning the sanity and judgment of a man who claims to speak to a divine being. Anyone who claims such nonsense is mentally ill.
IE runs in wine and BofA xfers work. I have IE 6 running on my ubuntu box just fine. It would be cool if IETabs worked in Linux but eh.
For asking too many stupid questions.