You think a handful of women in government who might care a little more about womens issues are going to make men underrepresented?
You remind me of when Elena Kagan was nominated and people were complaining that no man had been nominated to the court in awhile. There've been a total of 3 women nominated in the entire history of the court. There's no danger of women taking over and men losing power.
Your post would only make sense if women's issues had gotten fair treatment up to now. Seeing as they haven't, it seems understandable that a woman might look to another woman to set things right.
Clinton lost because she didn't count delegates as well as Obama, she certainly had the money to compete in more states, but for some reason did not. That, and the real reason: she voted for the Iraq war. Obama was the first national politician Americans got to vote for that was openly opposed to that travesty at the time.
What in the world does alleged lying have to do with empathy? Poor performance of the intelligence community hardly seems relevant, but at least you're making your bias clear from the get go I suppose.
You think a whole society that murders thousands of people for a lie does not have a problem with empathy? That never facing up to that fact isn't going to have a negative effect on empathy? And for your information, the "intelligence community" such as it is, reported that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion. Please, bring us another excuse for mass murder, this one was dead before it even got started.
"Additionally, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, "international law" doesn't mean anything."
Military commanders have been convicted of crimes against the peace even when their countries were not parties to any treaty outlawing it. The concept of laws that bind people that haven't explicitly agreed to them is well established.
This is beside the point, since the US has ratified the United Nations convention which mandates that countries take their disputes to the Security Council. Bush promised to do so, then did not after it became clear that Saddam did not have WMD, and wasn't trying to build them, and had conceded to every demand of the Security Council.
"If you are talking about a deceleration of war, congress never issued a deceleration of war (and hasn't since WW2), they only continue to fund the military."
Congress passes "Force Authorizations", which are arguably more powerful than declarations of war, since they allow for the tailoring of powers granted to the president.
The Iraq War authorization had attached conditions. Invasion was not authorized unless the conditions were met, which they weren't.
As to the Supreme Court, I'll wager that the supremes will never inject itself into decisions on force authorization. Crimes against the peace prosecutions would have to come from outside the country. The only form of justice available in our system for these crimes would have to come from congress, but they are too cowardly to act even when it's their own prerogatives being trampled.
The war was illegitimate and illegal, therefore orders to go fight are also. What's more, I haven't seen Bush pay for crimes against the peace, mass murder, and torture, so Bush bashing ain't over.
I'm ok with willy nilly interstate insurance as long as you have tough federal regulation. I'm not ok with the people of Mississippi (or wherever) deciding that it's ok for my insurance company to rip me off.
I don't think you realize how expensive health insurance is. It's like buying a second house. Even so, it would be worth it if you could guarantee that it would be there when I got sick. Right now, you can't, so I won't buy.
Maybe the Dems are going to improve that, maybe they won't. They say they will.
That there were WMD, but Saddam moved them to Syria.
That their weren't WMD, but we had good evidence he did.
That even if we didn't have evidence, Saddam said he did, and wouldn't let in inspectors.
That we've put on more debt in 1 year under Obama than 8 years with bush.
That the best thing to do in a recession is to balance the budget.
That social security is in crisis.
That Barney Frank forcing banks to loan to black people is what caused the crash of 2008.
That tax increases on the ultra rich are class warfare, but tax increases on everyone else are fair.
That gay marriage threatens marriage.
That the US has the best health care in the world.
That the most conservative, free-market based healthcare overhaul you could imagine coming from a Democrat is a dangerous socialist experiment.
That contrary to the Democratic plan, the best way to fix health care is a combination of tort reform and letting insurance comapanies pick their favorite state to regulate them.
That invading Iraq wasn't a war crime.
That torturing people isn't a war crime.
That we only tortured terrorists.
That waterboarding isn't torture.
That holding people without trial forever is ok.
That an illegal, dictatorial system of counter terrorism is better than a legal one.
That Bill Clinton was one of the most corrupt presidents.
That Sarah Palin might make a good president.
That Rush Limbaugh isn't a toxic zit on the ass of humanity.
You probably don't believe *all* of these things, but any one of them is obviously false or flatly ludicrous, and if you don't believe any of them, why would you be a Republican?
Watch people sitting in front of a TV. They are unnaturally still, almost paralyzed by the constant shifting images. Watch someone just sitting there, or using a computer. They will almost always be moving a little bit, shifting position, fidgeting, attention jumping from one thing to another.
Limbaugh's lie goes like this: newspaper says The national debt reached 11 Trillion last year. That's last year, not the 2001-2008, but 2009. It's Obama's debt!
Of course, The debt was already around 5 Trillion in 2001 and was nearly 10 Trillion by 2009, but Limbaugh thinks his listeners don't know that.
Where'd you hear that Obama added 5 trillion dollars to the national debt last year? You've been lied to. I'd guess by Rush Limbaugh, since he's been saying this for weeks, but no doubt a lot of lesser professional liars are repeating it.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy cow, 3600 goes perfectly into 27 million.
You think a handful of women in government who might care a little more about womens issues are going to make men underrepresented?
You remind me of when Elena Kagan was nominated and people were complaining that no man had been nominated to the court in awhile. There've been a total of 3 women nominated in the entire history of the court. There's no danger of women taking over and men losing power.
Your post would only make sense if women's issues had gotten fair treatment up to now. Seeing as they haven't, it seems understandable that a woman might look to another woman to set things right.
Clinton lost because she didn't count delegates as well as Obama, she certainly had the money to compete in more states, but for some reason did not. That, and the real reason: she voted for the Iraq war. Obama was the first national politician Americans got to vote for that was openly opposed to that travesty at the time.
Mod parent up please.
No, I like Jefferson, but he was wrong about having a weak central government, slavery being a good point against it.
That's what Jefferson and his crew were about, but they lost and the other guys won. If it wasn't clear then, it certainly was after Lincoln
What in the world does alleged lying have to do with empathy? Poor performance of the intelligence community hardly seems relevant, but at least you're making your bias clear from the get go I suppose.
You think a whole society that murders thousands of people for a lie does not have a problem with empathy? That never facing up to that fact isn't going to have a negative effect on empathy? And for your information, the "intelligence community" such as it is, reported that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion. Please, bring us another excuse for mass murder, this one was dead before it even got started.
Would you be surprised to learn that a bunch of Nazis wrote history books after the war?
"Additionally, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, "international law" doesn't mean anything."
Military commanders have been convicted of crimes against the peace even when their countries were not parties to any treaty outlawing it. The concept of laws that bind people that haven't explicitly agreed to them is well established.
This is beside the point, since the US has ratified the United Nations convention which mandates that countries take their disputes to the Security Council. Bush promised to do so, then did not after it became clear that Saddam did not have WMD, and wasn't trying to build them, and had conceded to every demand of the Security Council.
"If you are talking about a deceleration of war, congress never issued a deceleration of war (and hasn't since WW2), they only continue to fund the military."
Congress passes "Force Authorizations", which are arguably more powerful than declarations of war, since they allow for the tailoring of powers granted to the president.
The Iraq War authorization had attached conditions. Invasion was not authorized unless the conditions were met, which they weren't.
As to the Supreme Court, I'll wager that the supremes will never inject itself into decisions on force authorization. Crimes against the peace prosecutions would have to come from outside the country. The only form of justice available in our system for these crimes would have to come from congress, but they are too cowardly to act even when it's their own prerogatives being trampled.
Aggressive war has been illegal under international law since World War II. Congressional authorization of the war was given under false pretenses.
Moreover, authorization was given conditionally, it was not a blanket declaration. It's now clear the conditions were never met.
The war was illegitimate and illegal, therefore orders to go fight are also. What's more, I haven't seen Bush pay for crimes against the peace, mass murder, and torture, so Bush bashing ain't over.
Paper offers the chance to get up and walk around while reading or the chance to go to another part of the office to write.
"Seriously, STOP Playing GOD..."
This isn't a game.
"This bill is being rushed to an insane degree"
That's so much the opposite of the truth that I have to ask how you can even think it, much less write it.
I'm ok with willy nilly interstate insurance as long as you have tough federal regulation. I'm not ok with the people of Mississippi (or wherever) deciding that it's ok for my insurance company to rip me off.
I don't think you realize how expensive health insurance is. It's like buying a second house. Even so, it would be worth it if you could guarantee that it would be there when I got sick. Right now, you can't, so I won't buy.
Maybe the Dems are going to improve that, maybe they won't. They say they will.
While you dismiss it, the Fermi Paradox becomes more and more relevant as we continue to look and find nothing.
Since insuring everyone can actually save money, we can do both.
Republicans believe:
That there were WMD, but Saddam moved them to Syria.
That their weren't WMD, but we had good evidence he did.
That even if we didn't have evidence, Saddam said he did, and wouldn't let in inspectors.
That we've put on more debt in 1 year under Obama than 8 years with bush.
That the best thing to do in a recession is to balance the budget.
That social security is in crisis.
That Barney Frank forcing banks to loan to black people is what caused the crash of 2008.
That tax increases on the ultra rich are class warfare, but tax increases on everyone else are fair.
That gay marriage threatens marriage.
That the US has the best health care in the world.
That the most conservative, free-market based healthcare overhaul you could imagine coming from a Democrat is a dangerous socialist experiment.
That contrary to the Democratic plan, the best way to fix health care is a combination of tort reform and letting insurance comapanies pick their favorite state to regulate them.
That invading Iraq wasn't a war crime.
That torturing people isn't a war crime.
That we only tortured terrorists.
That waterboarding isn't torture.
That holding people without trial forever is ok.
That an illegal, dictatorial system of counter terrorism is better than a legal one.
That Bill Clinton was one of the most corrupt presidents.
That Sarah Palin might make a good president.
That Rush Limbaugh isn't a toxic zit on the ass of humanity.
You probably don't believe *all* of these things, but any one of them is obviously false or flatly ludicrous, and if you don't believe any of them, why would you be a Republican?
Watch people sitting in front of a TV. They are unnaturally still, almost paralyzed by the constant shifting images. Watch someone just sitting there, or using a computer. They will almost always be moving a little bit, shifting position, fidgeting, attention jumping from one thing to another.
Is this Sci-Fi-Same-as-Reality troll a new kind of Slashdot lifeform or has it existed for Eons beneath my notice?
Limbaugh's lie goes like this: newspaper says The national debt reached 11 Trillion last year. That's last year, not the 2001-2008, but 2009. It's Obama's debt!
Of course, The debt was already around 5 Trillion in 2001 and was nearly 10 Trillion by 2009, but Limbaugh thinks his listeners don't know that.
Where'd you hear that Obama added 5 trillion dollars to the national debt last year? You've been lied to. I'd guess by Rush Limbaugh, since he's been saying this for weeks, but no doubt a lot of lesser professional liars are repeating it.
I'm all for moving to the equator.