Joking, surely. The US firebombed Japan severely in WWII, destroying some cities completely and killing every single human in those cities. Dozens and dozens of cities were targeted, with destruction rates of 30-100%.
[Then your personal opinion are more important than majority opinion.]
Again, that does not follow, since preference is a sliding scale and not an zero-sum game.
[Majority opinion is what you advocate when you say "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for".]
Nope. I have preferences which I have not stated as to how I would like people to vote. There are majority opinions that I don't like. I do not advocate them.
I can both advocate the legitimacy offered by a large turnout and deride the result.
Because some people don't have picture ID. The poor and homeless may not have enough money for a non-drivers picture ID, nor might they even have personally addressed mail.
Now, logic tells me that if you don't care who I vote for, then you don't have a preference for the outcome of the election.
Actually, that doesn't logically follow. He only doesn't care who you vote for, not the electorate in general.
And perhaps he feels, as I do, that the larger the voter turnout, the greater the legitimacy of the results, and that that legitimacy is more important than who wins.
American foreign bases + unsettled populace = Beirut bombing. It doesn't equal any kind of increased effectiveness in fighting terrorism. Never has, never will.
Hussein's support of terror was trifling. $25K to the families of Palestinian bombers? That's a small price to live with, compared to the brutal crushing of Muslim extremist sects while he was in power.
The invasion of Iraq can only increase terrorism against the US and its allies, in both the short- and long-term.
Whereas in an odd way, I want to see Bush re-elected, because it'd be the last time for the next hundred years that the Republicans would control the White House.
We've had The Sony Store in Canada for more than a decade. In my town, there are at least three, with two of them on the same street.
They're all fairly small stores, the "no sports on TV" rule applies, the prices are competitive with the big boxes -- and often better once you count the gift cards they usually give you with any reasonably-sized purchase.
Speech is free in New Zealand? Then what about David Irving being barred from speaking there just in the last month? The shutting down of anti-APEC protestors in 2000? The Broadcasting Act of 1989? New Zealand is by no means a free speech zone.
Nor is The Netherlands, where hate speech is just as illegal as it is in Canada, under Article 137 of their Criminal Code.
And you couldn't even find one Canadian example to support your point.
Frankly, I think it'd be good for tha law to punish churches who preach hate against gays. Hasn't happened yet, but I hold out hope that it will. Society advances. It always does. Progress is inevitable, and Bronze Age morality will go the way of the dodo.
Freedom of speech isn't absolute anywhere. To say that if a freedom isn't absolute that it isn't freedom is a red herring.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my face is. Does this mean that you don't have freedom of travel?
There is no absolute right to free speech anywhere on this planet, including in the US. Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre? No? Do you have laws against incitement to riot in the US? Yes? Then you're not free, either.
Hate speech is speech which has incites hatred or promotes genocide. Hate speech is, in essence, a form of incitement to riot; no actual assault is required to occur for the charge to stick.
Churches have been threatened to stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin, because "that's hate speech."
Bullshit. This claim has been made repeatedly by people with an axe to grind. No church has ever been threatened or charged by any legal authority for the above.
Cite a major media source or fuck off.
The $1500 was for an advertisement, not for a letter to the editor, and was not endorsed by any church.
When it comes to being a soldier, drafted or not, it is the values and protection of your country that come before your own
I reject that ethic. The values of and protection of my country do not come before my own interests if that service is compelled upon me by threat of punishment.
My integrity would require that I take a bullet in the head from a superior officer rather than actively serve in the military under duress.
I guarantee that the number of Iraqi-born terrorists is greater now than there were under Saddam. I guarantee that the number of anti-American terrorists worldwide is greater now than there were when Saddam was in power.
I guarantee that the Iraqi people are no more free now and will not be any more free in future than they were under Saddam.
The US gained absolutely nothing from the invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
Y'know, your outrage is analogous to that of those Trekkies who gets offended by movies like those he makes.
Chill. He stated opinions as generalizations. There are always exceptions.
But you're really not much of a conservative anyway.
Japan was not bombed flat btw.
Joking, surely. The US firebombed Japan severely in WWII, destroying some cities completely and killing every single human in those cities. Dozens and dozens of cities were targeted, with destruction rates of 30-100%.
It's not insane at all. It doesn't matter if the ballot becomes meaningless; the franchise is of paramount importance.
I have never had to show ID to vote. I have never been concerned about voter fraud.
I don't have to. If you want to interfere with the voting franchise, then you have to come up with a better way to prevent fraud, not me.
Better that a hundred fraudulent ballots be cast than one valid ballot be prevented, I say.
[Then your personal opinion are more important than majority opinion.]
Again, that does not follow, since preference is a sliding scale and not an zero-sum game.
[Majority opinion is what you advocate when you say "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for".]
Nope. I have preferences which I have not stated as to how I would like people to vote. There are majority opinions that I don't like. I do not advocate them.
I can both advocate the legitimacy offered by a large turnout and deride the result.
No, that doesn't follow, either. How any election turns out does not change my beliefs.
Because some people don't have picture ID. The poor and homeless may not have enough money for a non-drivers picture ID, nor might they even have personally addressed mail.
They should still be entitled to vote.
Now, logic tells me that if you don't care who I vote for, then you don't have a preference for the outcome of the election.
Actually, that doesn't logically follow. He only doesn't care who you vote for, not the electorate in general.
And perhaps he feels, as I do, that the larger the voter turnout, the greater the legitimacy of the results, and that that legitimacy is more important than who wins.
"Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster"
The Canadian federal elections use paper ballots, and every vote is counted within eight hours of the closing of the polls.
Paper ballots work. Non-transparent systems like most of the e-voting systems in the US are the recipes for disaster.
American foreign bases + unsettled populace = Beirut bombing. It doesn't equal any kind of increased effectiveness in fighting terrorism. Never has, never will.
Hussein's support of terror was trifling. $25K to the families of Palestinian bombers? That's a small price to live with, compared to the brutal crushing of Muslim extremist sects while he was in power.
The invasion of Iraq can only increase terrorism against the US and its allies, in both the short- and long-term.
Pretty much. It's not my country. I only care about US politics to the extent that it affects my country and for its entertainment value.
Whereas in an odd way, I want to see Bush re-elected, because it'd be the last time for the next hundred years that the Republicans would control the White House.
Maybe you can explain how toppling Iraq has done anything to reduce the amount of terrorism in the world.
Very few people have had any problems with the US war on terror, until the bogus invasion of Iraq.
We've had The Sony Store in Canada for more than a decade. In my town, there are at least three, with two of them on the same street.
They're all fairly small stores, the "no sports on TV" rule applies, the prices are competitive with the big boxes -- and often better once you count the gift cards they usually give you with any reasonably-sized purchase.
What prevents it?
1. You can register the day of an election, at the polls.
2. The ballots are counted the same night they're cast.
3. There's always a paper trail.
4. The counting is always watched by people from multiple parties.
5. You can even vote after the results are announced if you can show that you have been disenfranchised.
Speech is free in New Zealand? Then what about David Irving being barred from speaking there just in the last month? The shutting down of anti-APEC protestors in 2000? The Broadcasting Act of 1989? New Zealand is by no means a free speech zone.
Nor is The Netherlands, where hate speech is just as illegal as it is in Canada, under Article 137 of their Criminal Code.
I'm not gay. I'm very much in favour of C-250.
And you couldn't even find one Canadian example to support your point.
Frankly, I think it'd be good for tha law to punish churches who preach hate against gays. Hasn't happened yet, but I hold out hope that it will. Society advances. It always does. Progress is inevitable, and Bronze Age morality will go the way of the dodo.
Freedom of speech isn't absolute anywhere. To say that if a freedom isn't absolute that it isn't freedom is a red herring.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my face is. Does this mean that you don't have freedom of travel?
There is no absolute right to free speech anywhere on this planet, including in the US. Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre? No? Do you have laws against incitement to riot in the US? Yes? Then you're not free, either.
Hate speech is speech which has incites hatred or promotes genocide. Hate speech is, in essence, a form of incitement to riot; no actual assault is required to occur for the charge to stick.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Churches have been threatened to stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin, because "that's hate speech."
Bullshit. This claim has been made repeatedly by people with an axe to grind. No church has ever been threatened or charged by any legal authority for the above.
Cite a major media source or fuck off.
The $1500 was for an advertisement, not for a letter to the editor, and was not endorsed by any church.
I work in the BC legislature.
I'm in Canada. I know exactly zero people who support Bush in general. I know exactly zero people who support Bush over Kerry.
And I work in a legislature filled with partisan officials of a right-wing government.
Khruschev said it best. Paraphrasing: "Why would we ever want to invade America? Everybody there has a gun!"
If forced to defend that freedom under threat, then I do not logically have any freedom.
I would volunteer to defend my country at home. I would not volunteer to "defend" it in a foreign land. And I would never serve if drafted.
When it comes to being a soldier, drafted or not, it is the values and protection of your country that come before your own
I reject that ethic. The values of and protection of my country do not come before my own interests if that service is compelled upon me by threat of punishment.
My integrity would require that I take a bullet in the head from a superior officer rather than actively serve in the military under duress.
I guarantee that the number of Iraqi-born terrorists is greater now than there were under Saddam. I guarantee that the number of anti-American terrorists worldwide is greater now than there were when Saddam was in power.
I guarantee that the Iraqi people are no more free now and will not be any more free in future than they were under Saddam.
The US gained absolutely nothing from the invasion.