Besides which, the link doesn't even bring up any decent results. Out of the Top Ten results, only #7 and #10 link to a trailer. A better link is this one, you get a trailer in the first linked result.
However, I do dislike Bush far more than you might wish I did, because I cannot forget that his father, his party, and some people who are working in his administration at the moment, are responsible for putting Hussein in the position he was in.
That's a pretty damaging statement. Got any proof? I've done some basic digging on the subject, and haven't found anything to support the idea that anyone in America did anything at anytime to help Saddam gain power. If you've got evidence someone did, it needs to be shown the light of day.
Yes, strawmen. Where in my original post did I even mentioned France? I didn't, yet the responder brought up something about people like France, therefore they're traitors. It has nothing to do with my post, therefore it's a strawman.
Yeah, I'll readily concede that Coulter has much in common with Moore, and her books and columns are entertaining for the same reasons. Granted, I tend to agree with her basic premises, so it's easier for me to laugh with her (since with Moore he's laughing at me).
Besides, when it comes to having book jackets on my shelf, I'd rather have one with a leggy blonde on the cover than a fat redneck in a John Deere cap. Coulter looks like someone I'd want to date, Moore looks like someone I'd watch carefully during a poker game.
I was going to write a cogent response, 'til I realized your arguments are nothing but strawmen. So instead I'll just cut to the chase and say: you're a stinkin' traitor.
That's a pretty sweeping charge to make. Do you happen to have more information? Specifics would really help. I'm asking because I really want to know...
No! Say it isn't so! How could he possibly have improved on that stinking pile of fetid garbage?
Have to disagree with Treason. Second best book I read this past year (the best was The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, does an excellent explaining pretty much all of the problems in the Middle East and Balkans these days). Her premise isn't that being liberal is treasonous, it's that liberals almost always side with America's enemies. Which is pretty self evident to any rational person.
One can argue that the US did put Saddam Hussein in place anyway...
You can, but you'd be wrong. A quick search on Google for "saddam hussein" "rise to power" turned up quite a few pages, of which this one is the most informative: http://www.patriot-paradox.com/archives/000105.htm l. In short, Saddam attained power by murdering those around him, just like his hero, Hitler. At no time did the US lend support to him, or his organization.
First off, as an American, let me state for the record that Americans, in general, honestly do not care what the rest of the world thinks. We are God's own country, and we will do what's in our best interests. Don't like it? Then don't get in our way. Manifest Destiny, my friend, is alive and well in the 21st century, just as it was in the 19th.
The US did not disobey the UN, we enforced the resolutions the UN was not willing to. The Security Council passed 1441, and we acted on it. If the UN is not going to have the cajones to fulfill it's pledges, then it needs to close up shop and let someone else mind the store for awhile. And, yes, that someone else should be the US.
And as for "anti-competitive reconstruction contracts based on the political stances of democratic elected governments", this is FUD. We're simply not allowing people who didn't send troops or resources to Iraq to benefit from our largesse. Why is this bad? Why should American tax dollars go to people who opposed the war and didn't want their sons in the line of fire, while ours have been fighting and dying?
You're right, France is our oldest ally. They are not, however, our best friend.
Take that you anti-France bastards. We're old friends, it is about time you honored the contract, and listened to your friends, you petulant children.
It is *exactly* that attitude that has pissed off so many Americans. Just because France helped us 200 years ago, a favor we have repaid several times since, doesn't mean they get to talk down to us and try to dictate what our foriegn policy will be. Especially when it is so painfully obvious that France's opposition to the war in Iraq had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with money.
As for the war in Vietnam, France didn't go to war to stave off communism because we convinced them it was a nifty idea to do so. They did it to try to hang on to Indochina just a little longer while their empire fell apart.
And for American arms deals in Iraq, common sense says Iraq got most of it's arms from Russia and France, since the vast majority (90%+) of their arsenal at the start of GWI was from those two countries. They weren't flying F-4 Phantoms, they had MiG-21s and Mirages. They weren't driving Abrams, or even Shermans, they had T-70s. And they aren't using LAWs against our guys over there now, they have Russian made RPGs. And have you noticed how many of the instructions for their labs are written in French?
USB Menorah? who cares?
on
USB Menorah
·
· Score: 1
I'm waiting for the USB dreidl. Now that's a fun idea!
Unfortunately it is protected as Diebold's trade secret. Since the FOIA applies only to government agencies I don't think this would work.
Two court cases would probably go in your favor. The first is the Pentagon Papers case. The court ruled that public freedom to information was more important than national security. If that's the case, it's certainly more important than trade secrets about an election system.
The second is the recent ruling (can't remember which court) regarding copyrights on public laws. They were ruled invalid, as it's more important that the public know what the law is than some building contractor making a few bucks off writing one. In both cases, the public good was held to be more important than preventing access to information. I'd think both would be directly applicable to gaining access to Diebold source code. Anyone got a couple of hundred thou laying around they can use to hire the lawyers needed to investigate this? Maybe it's something the EFF & ACLU could join forces on?
It's not, the UK is a constitutional monarchy, with some trappings of direct and representative democracy. Remember, legally, Parliament serves at the pleasure of the monarch (though there hasn't been a King or Queen with real power since George V at the latest, and likely won't be until at least William's first kid takes over, if ever).
The parent complained that "Everybody Loves Raymond" is belittling to men, and it gets marked Flamebait? How? Why?
Raymond (and "According to Jim", and "My Wife and Kids", and "8 Simple Rules" while Jon Ritter was still alive, and just about every other "family" show on these days) gets most of its laughs from the foibles and follies of a mostly inept father/husband. If the character of Raymond were a woman, NOW and other womens' groups would be screaming bloody murder, and rightly so. But since the dufuses of these shows are all men, we're expected to laugh along with everyone else.
Again, I ask, Why? Why should men be made the butt of every joke on TV? Why should husbands and fathers be portrayed as lazy, stupid, untrustworthy fools? What ever happened to "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best"? The only halfway decent father figure on TV these days is Red from "The 70's Show", and he's an ass most of the time.
Just gonna do a little devil's advocating, even though we're getting further and further off topic.
The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
What about hetero couples who choose not to have children? Should they not be allowed to marry?
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Gay sex and marriage are immoral, as are divorce and infidelity. It's no surprise that a place which has one type of immorality has another. So there may be general society problems causing both, it may not be gay marriage itself destroying values.
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Customs and traditions change as society changes. Why should this one be different than any others?
Have you *read* Roe v. Wade? The decision wasn't based on the Federal government having the right to do anything, it was based a woman having the right to terminate a pregnancy. Which while not specifically granted under the Constitution, the two Amendments you list do grant that anything not listed is reserved as a right. So the case was based on firm, if misguided (since no thought was given to the child's right to live), Constitutional principles.
You want to preserve marriage? Outlaw divorce. And start by arresting all the members of congress who've had affairs or divorces.
Finally, someone on the left who gets it!
I consider myself pretty conservative on most things, but couldn't give a rat's ass if gay guys and gals get a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. As a Catholic, I'm against it. But as an American, I firmly believe the government has no place legislating with regards to religion. And *all* of the arguments against gay marriage are religious!
And like you imply, ready made divorces do more harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever will.
For my next shot, I'll pick on Catholics for believing they actually eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ. It's not just wine & bread once it's been consecrated. Most Catholics don't think about that, but ask a priest about it.
Hey, Christ said to eat his body and drink his blood, not eat something like his body and drink something like his blood. Besides, a little cannibalism among friends never hurt anyone.
The world has a touch too many people in it already...
This is gonna sound like a troll or flamebait, but it's not. I'm going to be absurd to point out the absurdity of your statement. Too bad/. moderators are even more absurd, requiring this disclaimer.
If you honestly felt this way, you'd do the honorable thing and end your life. Otherwise your complaint is really that there are too many other people in the world.
If you look at the historical records, you will see a marked jump in the percent of people who die of cancer after the introduction of antibiotics.
Hmm, wonder if that's because people are suddenly *not* dying of cholera, tuberculosus, or the plague?
Food does the same thing. In times of famine and wars (for that matter) very few people die of cancer.
Wow, in times of famine, people don't die from cancer? Too bad they're all busy dying of starvation, they could've lived forever!
Too bad you had to lead off with such bizarre statements, since I find myself nodding to just about everything else (including the critique of the overuse of anti-biotics, and that getting the sniffles once in awhile is a good thing).
And just think of the jobs it would create! The Moon economy is pretty weak these days, keeping as much manufacturing local as possible would be a great boon for it.
And "prosecute" doesn't mean the spammer ends up with his ass pounded. It means he pays a token fine of maybe 10% of the profits he gained from his scam, and then signs a letter in which he neither admits nor denies guilt, but that whatever it was that he neither admits nor denies doing, he won't do it again, at least not while anyone's looking.
Um, no, you're wrong. From the text of the law: (5) PENALTY- Whoever knowingly violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
I don't know what the fine works out to, but 5 years in prison sounds like a fitting punishment for spammers to me.
*Bzzzt* Wrong. Trespass is a criminal action, not a civil one. So you can't sue someone for trespass. You can sue them if they damage your property, but that's different.
And battery is also a criminal offence. OJ was sued for wrongful death, something completely different.
As for the criminal penalties not being as harsh as monetary, if someone gets sued by 1000 people for $1000 each, he declares bankruptcy and walks away. You can't do that to a jail sentance.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, moderators, it's not Informative if it's a useless or broken link. This one works. Why is this so hard??
Besides which, the link doesn't even bring up any decent results. Out of the Top Ten results, only #7 and #10 link to a trailer. A better link is this one, you get a trailer in the first linked result.
However, I do dislike Bush far more than you might wish I did, because I cannot forget that his father, his party, and some people who are working in his administration at the moment, are responsible for putting Hussein in the position he was in.
That's a pretty damaging statement. Got any proof? I've done some basic digging on the subject, and haven't found anything to support the idea that anyone in America did anything at anytime to help Saddam gain power. If you've got evidence someone did, it needs to be shown the light of day.
Yes, strawmen. Where in my original post did I even mentioned France? I didn't, yet the responder brought up something about people like France, therefore they're traitors. It has nothing to do with my post, therefore it's a strawman.
Yeah, I'll readily concede that Coulter has much in common with Moore, and her books and columns are entertaining for the same reasons. Granted, I tend to agree with her basic premises, so it's easier for me to laugh with her (since with Moore he's laughing at me).
Besides, when it comes to having book jackets on my shelf, I'd rather have one with a leggy blonde on the cover than a fat redneck in a John Deere cap. Coulter looks like someone I'd want to date, Moore looks like someone I'd watch carefully during a poker game.
I was going to write a cogent response, 'til I realized your arguments are nothing but strawmen. So instead I'll just cut to the chase and say: you're a stinkin' traitor.
There, happy?
Ann Coulter's a lot of things, but I've yet to see an example of her being a liar. If you've got one, please share.
That's a pretty sweeping charge to make. Do you happen to have more information? Specifics would really help. I'm asking because I really want to know...
Then go pick up a copy of her book. Duh.
Moore improves on Stupid White Men a lot...
No! Say it isn't so! How could he possibly have improved on that stinking pile of fetid garbage?
Have to disagree with Treason. Second best book I read this past year (the best was The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, does an excellent explaining pretty much all of the problems in the Middle East and Balkans these days). Her premise isn't that being liberal is treasonous, it's that liberals almost always side with America's enemies. Which is pretty self evident to any rational person.
One can argue that the US did put Saddam Hussein in place anyway...
m l. In short, Saddam attained power by murdering those around him, just like his hero, Hitler. At no time did the US lend support to him, or his organization.
You can, but you'd be wrong. A quick search on Google for "saddam hussein" "rise to power" turned up quite a few pages, of which this one is the most informative: http://www.patriot-paradox.com/archives/000105.ht
First off, as an American, let me state for the record that Americans, in general, honestly do not care what the rest of the world thinks. We are God's own country, and we will do what's in our best interests. Don't like it? Then don't get in our way. Manifest Destiny, my friend, is alive and well in the 21st century, just as it was in the 19th.
The US did not disobey the UN, we enforced the resolutions the UN was not willing to. The Security Council passed 1441, and we acted on it. If the UN is not going to have the cajones to fulfill it's pledges, then it needs to close up shop and let someone else mind the store for awhile. And, yes, that someone else should be the US.
And as for "anti-competitive reconstruction contracts based on the political stances of democratic elected governments", this is FUD. We're simply not allowing people who didn't send troops or resources to Iraq to benefit from our largesse. Why is this bad? Why should American tax dollars go to people who opposed the war and didn't want their sons in the line of fire, while ours have been fighting and dying?
You're right, France is our oldest ally. They are not, however, our best friend.
Take that you anti-France bastards. We're old friends, it is about time you honored the contract, and listened to your friends, you petulant children.
It is *exactly* that attitude that has pissed off so many Americans. Just because France helped us 200 years ago, a favor we have repaid several times since, doesn't mean they get to talk down to us and try to dictate what our foriegn policy will be. Especially when it is so painfully obvious that France's opposition to the war in Iraq had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with money.
As for the war in Vietnam, France didn't go to war to stave off communism because we convinced them it was a nifty idea to do so. They did it to try to hang on to Indochina just a little longer while their empire fell apart.
And for American arms deals in Iraq, common sense says Iraq got most of it's arms from Russia and France, since the vast majority (90%+) of their arsenal at the start of GWI was from those two countries. They weren't flying F-4 Phantoms, they had MiG-21s and Mirages. They weren't driving Abrams, or even Shermans, they had T-70s. And they aren't using LAWs against our guys over there now, they have Russian made RPGs. And have you noticed how many of the instructions for their labs are written in French?
I'm waiting for the USB dreidl. Now that's a fun idea!
Unfortunately it is protected as Diebold's trade secret. Since the FOIA applies only to government agencies I don't think this would work.
Two court cases would probably go in your favor. The first is the Pentagon Papers case. The court ruled that public freedom to information was more important than national security. If that's the case, it's certainly more important than trade secrets about an election system.
The second is the recent ruling (can't remember which court) regarding copyrights on public laws. They were ruled invalid, as it's more important that the public know what the law is than some building contractor making a few bucks off writing one. In both cases, the public good was held to be more important than preventing access to information. I'd think both would be directly applicable to gaining access to Diebold source code. Anyone got a couple of hundred thou laying around they can use to hire the lawyers needed to investigate this? Maybe it's something the EFF & ACLU could join forces on?
How can that possibly be allowed in a democracy?
It's not, the UK is a constitutional monarchy, with some trappings of direct and representative democracy. Remember, legally, Parliament serves at the pleasure of the monarch (though there hasn't been a King or Queen with real power since George V at the latest, and likely won't be until at least William's first kid takes over, if ever).
The parent complained that "Everybody Loves Raymond" is belittling to men, and it gets marked Flamebait? How? Why?
Raymond (and "According to Jim", and "My Wife and Kids", and "8 Simple Rules" while Jon Ritter was still alive, and just about every other "family" show on these days) gets most of its laughs from the foibles and follies of a mostly inept father/husband. If the character of Raymond were a woman, NOW and other womens' groups would be screaming bloody murder, and rightly so. But since the dufuses of these shows are all men, we're expected to laugh along with everyone else.
Again, I ask, Why? Why should men be made the butt of every joke on TV? Why should husbands and fathers be portrayed as lazy, stupid, untrustworthy fools? What ever happened to "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best"? The only halfway decent father figure on TV these days is Red from "The 70's Show", and he's an ass most of the time.
Just gonna do a little devil's advocating, even though we're getting further and further off topic.
The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
What about hetero couples who choose not to have children? Should they not be allowed to marry?
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Gay sex and marriage are immoral, as are divorce and infidelity. It's no surprise that a place which has one type of immorality has another. So there may be general society problems causing both, it may not be gay marriage itself destroying values.
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Customs and traditions change as society changes. Why should this one be different than any others?
Have you *read* Roe v. Wade? The decision wasn't based on the Federal government having the right to do anything, it was based a woman having the right to terminate a pregnancy. Which while not specifically granted under the Constitution, the two Amendments you list do grant that anything not listed is reserved as a right. So the case was based on firm, if misguided (since no thought was given to the child's right to live), Constitutional principles.
You want to preserve marriage? Outlaw divorce. And start by arresting all the members of congress who've had affairs or divorces.
Finally, someone on the left who gets it!
I consider myself pretty conservative on most things, but couldn't give a rat's ass if gay guys and gals get a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. As a Catholic, I'm against it. But as an American, I firmly believe the government has no place legislating with regards to religion. And *all* of the arguments against gay marriage are religious!
And like you imply, ready made divorces do more harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever will.
For my next shot, I'll pick on Catholics for believing they actually eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ. It's not just wine & bread once it's been consecrated. Most Catholics don't think about that, but ask a priest about it.
Hey, Christ said to eat his body and drink his blood, not eat something like his body and drink something like his blood. Besides, a little cannibalism among friends never hurt anyone.
The world has a touch too many people in it already...
/. moderators are even more absurd, requiring this disclaimer.
This is gonna sound like a troll or flamebait, but it's not. I'm going to be absurd to point out the absurdity of your statement. Too bad
If you honestly felt this way, you'd do the honorable thing and end your life. Otherwise your complaint is really that there are too many other people in the world.
If you look at the historical records, you will see a marked jump in the percent of people who die of cancer after the introduction of antibiotics.
Hmm, wonder if that's because people are suddenly *not* dying of cholera, tuberculosus, or the plague?
Food does the same thing. In times of famine and wars (for that matter) very few people die of cancer.
Wow, in times of famine, people don't die from cancer? Too bad they're all busy dying of starvation, they could've lived forever!
Too bad you had to lead off with such bizarre statements, since I find myself nodding to just about everything else (including the critique of the overuse of anti-biotics, and that getting the sniffles once in awhile is a good thing).
I guess this is something that we will not every know the "truth" of.
Only because you don't want to. If the man himself says his invention isn't important, who are you to argue?
And just think of the jobs it would create! The Moon economy is pretty weak these days, keeping as much manufacturing local as possible would be a great boon for it.
And "prosecute" doesn't mean the spammer ends up with his ass pounded. It means he pays a token fine of maybe 10% of the profits he gained from his scam, and then signs a letter in which he neither admits nor denies guilt, but that whatever it was that he neither admits nor denies doing, he won't do it again, at least not while anyone's looking.
Um, no, you're wrong. From the text of the law:
(5) PENALTY- Whoever knowingly violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
I don't know what the fine works out to, but 5 years in prison sounds like a fitting punishment for spammers to me.
*Bzzzt* Wrong. Trespass is a criminal action, not a civil one. So you can't sue someone for trespass. You can sue them if they damage your property, but that's different.
And battery is also a criminal offence. OJ was sued for wrongful death, something completely different.
As for the criminal penalties not being as harsh as monetary, if someone gets sued by 1000 people for $1000 each, he declares bankruptcy and walks away. You can't do that to a jail sentance.