I agree with you completely, but finding some WMD would go a long way to shut up all my liberal friends who harp on it. Although, I doubt at this point that we can find anyting considering we gave _months_ notice to Saddam about our intent to invade. By now, he's probably either destroyed it, hidden it hella good, or just given it to his buds the Syrians.
Wait a sec. Isn't an ampere just columbs(sp?) per second? And candellas are jules per meter squared(and jules can be broken into kilograms and whatnot). It was my understanding that the base units were kg, m, s, c, and something relating to magnetic field. I thought, at least, that candelas, and amperes were built out of the other 2 units. Even kelvins are just anothe way of writing jules.
-OBVIOUSLY WE WENT INTO IRAQ TO CONTROL THEIR OIL! THE VERY FIRST THING WE WENT AFTER WAS THE OIL WELLS! AND WHAT'S THE FIRST THING WE DID WITH THOSE WELLS??? SHUT OFF THE OIL TO SYRIA!
And of course, the fact that a)Saddam has already shown in the past that he doesn't care about causing an international ecological problem. b)The pipeline they built to Syria was illegal under the embargo's the UN placed under them (basically, they were selling under the table to syria when they werent supposed to)
The president went before the American people and did nothing but lie to justify this war.
The al Qaeda link to Hussein? There was none. It was a lie I guess you have to look past the documents that we recovered from Saddam's ministry of information detailing visits from Al Qaeda's operatives.
The supposed proof that Saddam was building nuclear weapons? It was a forgery. It was a lieI'll give you that one, we havn't produced any evidence yet outside of a mobile weapon's lab
The supposed evidence that Saddam was building other WMD's? It was a plagiarized school report over a decade old! It was a lie!How about the fact that the inspectors found thousand upon thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents and that Saddam has never produced anything saying that he had gotten rid of him? How about the cites that were absolutely wiped off the face of the earth with chemical weapons? What about the mass graves we found not too long ago with 20,000 bodies, all with chemical agents in their corpses?
Before you spout off about how everything is a fabrication by the Bush administration, try and put some evidence out. Just because you hate the guy doesn't mean that absolutely every thing he does is wrong.
I don't think I understand your second paragraph. Yes, the Matrix 2 was rated R. There was an explicit (and drawn out) sex scene. There was also tons of violence, some drawing blood (trinity, keymaker...) , but not gory. But... what does your last clause mean? Was it supposed to be a threat? I dunno, maybe it's just too early.
>>(As Minuteman himself would say, "Right makes might!")
Isn't the quote, "Might makes right!" The first quote says that being correct makes you powerfull. The second quote says that being powerful makes you correct.
Using Linux does not make one an illegal hacker, nor does being a member of NAMBLA make one a child molestor
Being a member of NAMBLA doesn't make you a child molester per-say, but their organisation does defend child-molestation (they claim they don't, but that's basically what it boils down to), NAMBLA: The North American Man/Boy Love Association.
I'm not trolling, but could you provide a site that has that statistic and others? (It's helpfull when talking to people about the madness that is the RIAA) Thanks,
Note that I used the word trust rather than danger. I could see many people seeing Bush as dangerous due to his push for was, but still trust him.
If you want "trust" rather than "danger", and don't think Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, and Powell have lied while trying to make their case for war, then you need to start getting some of your news from sources other than FOX. Does the BBC count? Why is it that everone that is against the war automagically assumes that everyone that is for the war has been brainwashed by propaganda? At any rate, it's irrefutable that Hussein has repeatedly violated not only his own people but the nations around him and his promises of the world.
The thing I ask again though is: Both Bush and Saddam are adamant about their position. Who do you think is telling the truth?
Of course, the US administration would quickly manufacturer some "evidence"
Your kinda putting the administration in a tough position there. They have to produce evidence, but any evidence they produce is a forgery.
The whole of your argument becomes: "Do you trust Bush or Saddam more?" I think that there's only one sensical(sp?) answer.
Re:I'm for the war... but..
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
And how exactly does one use WMD for "defense only"? A weapon of mass destruction has only one purpose. It is interesting how the propaganda parrots do not hesitate to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons but always find a justification for US's use of nuclear weapons -- on a civilian population, mind you!
I wouldn't have a problem, nor do I think a vast majority of the world would have a problem with Saddam posessing WMD, except for the fact that he signed an agreement strictly forbidding him from doing so. Several countries have WMD and we're not jumping down their throats because they havn't been prohibited. Also, when we dropped nuclear weapons on japan, we had a tough choice before us, either use this newfangled atomic weapon to scare the japaneese into surrendering, or risk hundreds of thousands of american lives in a beachfront assault of the mainland(keeping in mind that said assault would probably still result in many civilian casualties).
On the other hand, Sadam is a mad man and he has killed many of his own ppl.
With your support! Who the fuck do you think provided the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Why, it was the good old US of A! You give WMD to a madmen and what do you expect him to do with them?
I agree that it was a ridiculusly stupid thing for us to do, but that still doesnt excuse his actions. Those weapons wouldn't have harmed anyone if he hadn't chosen to use them, just like the weapons that gun owners keep locked up, weapons that countries posess etc...(excluding stealing etc..) I'm curious, in your mind, does us giving weapons to Iraq(or anyone else) remove all culpability from Iraq?
Did US protest when Saddam used chemical weapons -- back in the 80's mind you? Did it issue a condemnation? Nope. For propaganda parrots to come out now -- almost 20 years since Saddam used the chemical weapons -- and codemn him is hypocritical beyond belief.
Although I don't know enough about the incident your talking about, if he used that weapon on a military target during the iran-iraq war, it's a completely different situation than Saddam gassing an entire city of his own civilians. War is war, and whatever means are necessary(within war crimes guidelines) to shut down the opposing force in order to protect your own.
cheers-
I stopped reading after your first paragraph because it was so ridiculus. Show me concrete proof of Bush's intentions to invade iraq to 'get his friends some cheap oil' and then come talk to me. That argument is nothing more than a ploy to detract from the actual purpose of the war. We have given iraq chance after chance to follow the agreement that he signed. Eventually enough is enough, we gave him an ultimatim and he chose the latter. I can understand people disagreeing on whether or not they think iraq is a real threat and whether or not war is nescessary to defend ourselves, but the argument that Bush is going into iraq merely to assert US imperialism abroad, or Bush trying to fulfill some alterior motive is nothing more than a rumor. Say what you want about his policies, his intelligence, etc... but the man has morals and is comitted to this country, and I would much rather choose to believe him as opposed to saddam(which is what most debates about this war can be boiled down to, trust Saddam or trust Bush).
No, I think that the BSA believes petafiles(sp?) aren't AOK...
Re:Lol, at least the "damn liberals" aren't racist
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 1
Note that one person made a racist comment. Even though all of his colleagues renounced his statement, they all get thrown into the same 'racist' pot. That's kinda sad, don't you think?
Sigh, there so much misunderstanding here.
BTW notice the "damn liberals" dont have the majority in either the house or senate and the "racists" have the presidency as well.
If your comment was in reply to the parent's comment about leaving buisnesmen alone or whatever, that was an extreemly moot point. the republicans don't control the senate yet, and they've only controlled the house for 8-9 years? How would they be able to turn around 30-something odd years of liberal agenda in 8 years anyway?
But, I digress...
No one wants anything from the govt (society) until they are in need (ie medical healthcare)
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I personally dont have a problem with government-supported healthcare for the ones that truely need it, but there are far, far, far too many: people that abuse the system, corruption within the system and waste within the system. The problem that most(read: most) conservatives have with a lot of programs is that there is too much fat on it.
then every pathetic "racist" that lost their ass in the great stock market crash of 2000-2002 comes whining that they cannot afford to pay for health care. Fuck'em is what I say
fine. they were stupid for putting all of their money into the stock market
Since when did the "religious/racist" party give a shit about being hypocrites.
You're getting funny now, just because one person out of a group makes a racist statement, the whole group is tainted even though a vast majority of the group condemns that one person's action? Please.
Going to church every sunday and talking about how good you are and how you help so much (by giving to your "church/cult") for another activity center
I think you have a skewed view of what churches are. Without having a long, drawn-out explanation, if people were following the Bible, they wouldn't claim to be holy(er). Just remember that because people screw up an ideology doesn't mean the ideology is wrong. Also, spending for things like activity centers etc... are a vast minority of the entire budget. For instance, my church funds 2 homeless shelters, a clothing/hygene product program where they give clothes and hygene products to whoever needs and wants it, etc... Those are the things that the church does to help.
When the fucking public school across the street doesn't have textbooks newer than 1983 and the building is falling apart.
Being in a public school, I can say firsthand that that's a complete mis-management of the funds given to the school. Teachers complain about pay, a 27 inch TV was installed in each classroom. Students complain about the school' s condition, a several-millilon-dollar study is done on the effects of pre-kindergarten reading programs. The problem with a lot of public schools isnt the funding. For instance, my school system has had it's funding doubled in the past 6 years, it's just that there are a bunch of morons running theshow.
Notice my state of utterly moronic people. We voted all conservatives on the national level but all liberal on the local level. How the fuck does that happen? Welcome to DipShit USA. If I hear one more person say "I voted for him based on his character and I liked him better." I'm going to puke. All that means is "His commercial was more appealing than the other guy." Unbelievable.
I'll agree with you on that one. I watch and read about politcs all the time and people think I'm some sort of circus freak. The complete and utter lack of political-aptitude(whatver you want to call it) in this country is ridiculus, but I really dont know how it could be changed..
The 'religous right' says that because there are a large number of gay people that say that gayness(is that a word) is hereditary.
Re:How many times can the Democrats pull this crap
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
The point I was trying to make was that the law provides for people like you which cannot make it on election day(which is completely ok), so it's a little silly for people to say the Republicans are disenfranchising people when the people could just take a little time and perform their civic duty.
Well, even though it's on Tuesday, most states allow you to vote early and to also vote by mail. So even if you have to work, you can mail your vote early.
Re:How many times can the Democrats pull this crap
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
Why couldnt they just absentee vote or vote early? I was at school all day and at work all night, so I planned ahead and voted yesterday by mail, what's the difficulty in that?
Re:How many times can the Democrats pull this crap
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
No, YOUR post is completely idiotic.
If people arrive at 7:45 and there is a line for voting booths? Should their vote not count?
If your in line when the polls close, you still get to vote, if you show up after, too bad.
For example today an Arkansas decreed the polls stay up till 10:00 PM because at least one county ran out of ballots. If your polling place runs out of ballots, does that mean your vote doesn't count?
That's a different situation because the state screwed up, not the voter who decided that time limits were for sissies. In major cities getting off work to go to you polling place can take time and cost money. Since voting is not a holiday, not everyone can afford to take time to get to the polling place early.
Two easy solutions-1)Early voting: Most states(At least tennessee does it) allow you to vote a week or two in advance, theyre giving you a whole week or so to find a frickin minute to get out there, what more do you need 2)Absentee ballot:If you are just amazingly busy, you can vote by mail, which doesnt involve missing work.
Why on earth should late votes be discarded? What's the point of disenfanchising someone? Because the polling place is supposed to be closed?
Because in America, we have this thing we like to call 'the rule of law'. By law, if you get there late, you dont vote. If you dont like the law, get it changed. At least in tennessee, I cant recall anyone proposing a change to the law. It's not disenfranchising someone, we're bringing them to the water, so to speak, but they just insist on waiting untill it's dried up. Through early voting or absentee ballots, theres plenty of other opportuinites to vote that people are just too lazy/stupid to use.
Here's another clue -> Check the legal precedents for late ballots. You will find that even the currnet Supreme Court tends to error on the side of equal protection. From what I see in the precidents, the Supreme Court wasnt saying that people can disregard laws willy-nilly, but in specialised cases where the state was at fault in the delay there was an extension.
As far as the republicans trying to close the plls on the working man, isn't that EXACTLY the case?
Not one bit. I wish MORE people voted regardless of how they vote because the only way there will be change is through people voting. Are you saying,"Can't take time off for work?" Well screw you, we are going to make sure you don't get to vote. I find it amazing that this is OK for you. Are you sure you are in the right country?
You're beating the same drum, but once again, there are other opportunites to vote, and I find it hard to believe that there are that many people who are working from 7(or whenever the poles open) to 8pm(or whenever they close). It's just a situation where some people have 'more important' things to do(watch friends, post to/.:) ) than vote.
I don't think you realize how dangerous it is to "discard" votes (and why almost all the time those votes are counted, not discarded). Actually, the idea is to not let people in violation of the law vote in the first place, but that's an aside.
Democracies like ours operate on the principle one person, one vote. Any attempts to disenfranchise the right to vote is wrong. From poll taxes to roadblocks in Florida, thwarting the democractic process is extremely damaging to society in the long run.
I agree, disenfranchising voters is the worst thing that can happen, but the law's the law and there are ample opportuinites for people to vote, they just choose to not invoke those rights.
Being a newbie programmer, I'd have to say that developing for linux is far more difficult. At least with the different windows libraries and interfaces, there's some good documentation, but the library references for linux libraries are just horrid.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you completely, but finding some WMD would go a long way to shut up all my liberal friends who harp on it. Although, I doubt at this point that we can find anyting considering we gave _months_ notice to Saddam about our intent to invade. By now, he's probably either destroyed it, hidden it hella good, or just given it to his buds the Syrians.
I believe you definately posted to the wrong thread.
Wait a sec. Isn't an ampere just columbs(sp?) per second? And candellas are jules per meter squared(and jules can be broken into kilograms and whatnot). It was my understanding that the base units were kg, m, s, c, and something relating to magnetic field. I thought, at least, that candelas, and amperes were built out of the other 2 units. Even kelvins are just anothe way of writing jules.
Enlighten me please.
What would be wrong with having pi/6 radians marked out on the scale? I think that's what the parent was going for.
I'll bite.
-OBVIOUSLY WE WENT INTO IRAQ TO CONTROL THEIR OIL! THE VERY FIRST THING WE WENT AFTER WAS THE OIL WELLS! AND WHAT'S THE FIRST THING WE DID WITH THOSE WELLS??? SHUT OFF THE OIL TO SYRIA!
And of course, the fact that a)Saddam has already shown in the past that he doesn't care about causing an international ecological problem. b)The pipeline they built to Syria was illegal under the embargo's the UN placed under them (basically, they were selling under the table to syria when they werent supposed to)
The president went before the American people and did nothing but lie to justify this war.
The al Qaeda link to Hussein? There was none. It was a lie
I guess you have to look past the documents that we recovered from Saddam's ministry of information detailing visits from Al Qaeda's operatives.
The supposed proof that Saddam was building nuclear weapons? It was a forgery. It was a lieI'll give you that one, we havn't produced any evidence yet outside of a mobile weapon's lab
The supposed evidence that Saddam was building other WMD's? It was a plagiarized school report over a decade old! It was a lie!How about the fact that the inspectors found thousand upon thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents and that Saddam has never produced anything saying that he had gotten rid of him? How about the cites that were absolutely wiped off the face of the earth with chemical weapons? What about the mass graves we found not too long ago with 20,000 bodies, all with chemical agents in their corpses?
Before you spout off about how everything is a fabrication by the Bush administration, try and put some evidence out. Just because you hate the guy doesn't mean that absolutely every thing he does is wrong.
Try telling that to all the P2P companies who were shutdown after trying to argue that point.
I don't think I understand your second paragraph. Yes, the Matrix 2 was rated R. There was an explicit (and drawn out) sex scene. There was also tons of violence, some drawing blood (trinity, keymaker...) , but not gory. But... what does your last clause mean? Was it supposed to be a threat? I dunno, maybe it's just too early.
>>(As Minuteman himself would say, "Right makes might!")
Isn't the quote, "Might makes right!"
The first quote says that being correct makes you powerfull.
The second quote says that being powerful makes you correct.
Bucky the pedantic nazi.
I think an old version of Word had this 'feature' (Word 94 I think..) If you hit the right buttons, a 3d game popped up.
Using Linux does not make one an illegal hacker, nor does being a member of NAMBLA make one a child molestor
Being a member of NAMBLA doesn't make you a child molester per-say, but their organisation does defend child-molestation (they claim they don't, but that's basically what it boils down to), NAMBLA: The North American Man/Boy Love Association.
It goes in one side blistering fast at 3,000+ fps
You know when you've been playing too many games when speed is measured in FPS.
It's not a direct correlation but the 'laffers curve'(sp?) might fit with what he's saying
I'm not trolling, but could you provide a site that has that statistic and others? (It's helpfull when talking to people about the madness that is the RIAA)
Thanks,
Note that I used the word trust rather than danger. I could see many people seeing Bush as dangerous due to his push for was, but still trust him.
If you want "trust" rather than "danger", and don't think Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, and Powell have lied while trying to make their case for war, then you need to start getting some of your news from sources other than FOX.
Does the BBC count? Why is it that everone that is against the war automagically assumes that everyone that is for the war has been brainwashed by propaganda? At any rate, it's irrefutable that Hussein has repeatedly violated not only his own people but the nations around him and his promises of the world.
The thing I ask again though is: Both Bush and Saddam are adamant about their position. Who do you think is telling the truth?
Of course, the US administration would quickly manufacturer some "evidence"
Your kinda putting the administration in a tough position there. They have to produce evidence, but any evidence they produce is a forgery.
The whole of your argument becomes: "Do you trust Bush or Saddam more?" I think that there's only one sensical(sp?) answer.
And how exactly does one use WMD for "defense only"? A weapon of mass destruction has only one purpose. It is interesting how the propaganda parrots do not hesitate to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons but always find a justification for US's use of nuclear weapons -- on a civilian population, mind you!
I wouldn't have a problem, nor do I think a vast majority of the world would have a problem with Saddam posessing WMD, except for the fact that he signed an agreement strictly forbidding him from doing so. Several countries have WMD and we're not jumping down their throats because they havn't been prohibited. Also, when we dropped nuclear weapons on japan, we had a tough choice before us, either use this newfangled atomic weapon to scare the japaneese into surrendering, or risk hundreds of thousands of american lives in a beachfront assault of the mainland(keeping in mind that said assault would probably still result in many civilian casualties).
On the other hand, Sadam is a mad man and he has killed many of his own ppl. With your support! Who the fuck do you think provided the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Why, it was the good old US of A! You give WMD to a madmen and what do you expect him to do with them?
I agree that it was a ridiculusly stupid thing for us to do, but that still doesnt excuse his actions. Those weapons wouldn't have harmed anyone if he hadn't chosen to use them, just like the weapons that gun owners keep locked up, weapons that countries posess etc...(excluding stealing etc..) I'm curious, in your mind, does us giving weapons to Iraq(or anyone else) remove all culpability from Iraq?
Did US protest when Saddam used chemical weapons -- back in the 80's mind you? Did it issue a condemnation? Nope. For propaganda parrots to come out now -- almost 20 years since Saddam used the chemical weapons -- and codemn him is hypocritical beyond belief.
Although I don't know enough about the incident your talking about, if he used that weapon on a military target during the iran-iraq war, it's a completely different situation than Saddam gassing an entire city of his own civilians. War is war, and whatever means are necessary(within war crimes guidelines) to shut down the opposing force in order to protect your own. cheers-
I stopped reading after your first paragraph because it was so ridiculus. Show me concrete proof of Bush's intentions to invade iraq to 'get his friends some cheap oil' and then come talk to me. That argument is nothing more than a ploy to detract from the actual purpose of the war. We have given iraq chance after chance to follow the agreement that he signed. Eventually enough is enough, we gave him an ultimatim and he chose the latter. I can understand people disagreeing on whether or not they think iraq is a real threat and whether or not war is nescessary to defend ourselves, but the argument that Bush is going into iraq merely to assert US imperialism abroad, or Bush trying to fulfill some alterior motive is nothing more than a rumor. Say what you want about his policies, his intelligence, etc... but the man has morals and is comitted to this country, and I would much rather choose to believe him as opposed to saddam(which is what most debates about this war can be boiled down to, trust Saddam or trust Bush).
-An irate
No, I think that the BSA believes petafiles(sp?) aren't AOK...
Note that one person made a racist comment. Even though all of his colleagues renounced his statement, they all get thrown into the same 'racist' pot. That's kinda sad, don't you think?
Sigh, there so much misunderstanding here.
BTW notice the "damn liberals" dont have the majority in either the house or senate and the "racists" have the presidency as well.
If your comment was in reply to the parent's comment about leaving buisnesmen alone or whatever, that was an extreemly moot point. the republicans don't control the senate yet, and they've only controlled the house for 8-9 years? How would they be able to turn around 30-something odd years of liberal agenda in 8 years anyway?
But, I digress...
No one wants anything from the govt (society) until they are in need (ie medical healthcare)
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I personally dont have a problem with government-supported healthcare for the ones that truely need it, but there are far, far, far too many: people that abuse the system, corruption within the system and waste within the system. The problem that most(read: most) conservatives have with a lot of programs is that there is too much fat on it.
then every pathetic "racist" that lost their ass in the great stock market crash of 2000-2002 comes whining that they cannot afford to pay for health care. Fuck'em is what I say
fine. they were stupid for putting all of their money into the stock market
Since when did the "religious/racist" party give a shit about being hypocrites.
You're getting funny now, just because one person out of a group makes a racist statement, the whole group is tainted even though a vast majority of the group condemns that one person's action? Please.
Going to church every sunday and talking about how good you are and how you help so much (by giving to your "church/cult") for another activity center
I think you have a skewed view of what churches are. Without having a long, drawn-out explanation, if people were following the Bible, they wouldn't claim to be holy(er). Just remember that because people screw up an ideology doesn't mean the ideology is wrong. Also, spending for things like activity centers etc... are a vast minority of the entire budget. For instance, my church funds 2 homeless shelters, a clothing/hygene product program where they give clothes and hygene products to whoever needs and wants it, etc... Those are the things that the church does to help.
When the fucking public school across the street doesn't have textbooks newer than 1983 and the building is falling apart.
Being in a public school, I can say firsthand that that's a complete mis-management of the funds given to the school. Teachers complain about pay, a 27 inch TV was installed in each classroom. Students complain about the school' s condition, a several-millilon-dollar study is done on the effects of pre-kindergarten reading programs. The problem with a lot of public schools isnt the funding. For instance, my school system has had it's funding doubled in the past 6 years, it's just that there are a bunch of morons running theshow.
Notice my state of utterly moronic people. We voted all conservatives on the national level but all liberal on the local level. How the fuck does that happen? Welcome to DipShit USA. If I hear one more person say "I voted for him based on his character and I liked him better." I'm going to puke. All that means is "His commercial was more appealing than the other guy." Unbelievable.
I'll agree with you on that one. I watch and read about politcs all the time and people think I'm some sort of circus freak. The complete and utter lack of political-aptitude(whatver you want to call it) in this country is ridiculus, but I really dont know how it could be changed..
The 'religous right' says that because there are a large number of gay people that say that gayness(is that a word) is hereditary.
The point I was trying to make was that the law provides for people like you which cannot make it on election day(which is completely ok), so it's a little silly for people to say the Republicans are disenfranchising people when the people could just take a little time and perform their civic duty.
Well, even though it's on Tuesday, most states allow you to vote early and to also vote by mail. So even if you have to work, you can mail your vote early.
Why couldnt they just absentee vote or vote early? I was at school all day and at work all night, so I planned ahead and voted yesterday by mail, what's the difficulty in that?
No, YOUR post is completely idiotic.
/. :) ) than vote.
I don't think you realize how dangerous it is to "discard" votes (and why almost all the time those votes are counted, not discarded).
If people arrive at 7:45 and there is a line for voting booths? Should their vote not count?
If your in line when the polls close, you still get to vote, if you show up after, too bad.
For example today an Arkansas decreed the polls stay up till 10:00 PM because at least one county ran out of ballots. If your polling place runs out of ballots, does that mean your vote doesn't count?
That's a different situation because the state screwed up, not the voter who decided that time limits were for sissies.
In major cities getting off work to go to you polling place can take time and cost money. Since voting is not a holiday, not everyone can afford to take time to get to the polling place early.
Two easy solutions-1)Early voting: Most states(At least tennessee does it) allow you to vote a week or two in advance, theyre giving you a whole week or so to find a frickin minute to get out there, what more do you need 2)Absentee ballot:If you are just amazingly busy, you can vote by mail, which doesnt involve missing work.
Why on earth should late votes be discarded? What's the point of disenfanchising someone? Because the polling place is supposed to be closed?
Because in America, we have this thing we like to call 'the rule of law'. By law, if you get there late, you dont vote. If you dont like the law, get it changed. At least in tennessee, I cant recall anyone proposing a change to the law. It's not disenfranchising someone, we're bringing them to the water, so to speak, but they just insist on waiting untill it's dried up. Through early voting or absentee ballots, theres plenty of other opportuinites to vote that people are just too lazy/stupid to use.
Here's another clue -> Check the legal precedents for late ballots. You will find that even the currnet Supreme Court tends to error on the side of equal protection.
From what I see in the precidents, the Supreme Court wasnt saying that people can disregard laws willy-nilly, but in specialised cases where the state was at fault in the delay there was an extension. As far as the republicans trying to close the plls on the working man, isn't that EXACTLY the case?
Not one bit. I wish MORE people voted regardless of how they vote because the only way there will be change is through people voting.
Are you saying,"Can't take time off for work?" Well screw you, we are going to make sure you don't get to vote. I find it amazing that this is OK for you. Are you sure you are in the right country?
You're beating the same drum, but once again, there are other opportunites to vote, and I find it hard to believe that there are that many people who are working from 7(or whenever the poles open) to 8pm(or whenever they close). It's just a situation where some people have 'more important' things to do(watch friends, post to
Actually, the idea is to not let people in violation of the law vote in the first place, but that's an aside.
Democracies like ours operate on the principle one person, one vote. Any attempts to disenfranchise the right to vote is wrong. From poll taxes to roadblocks in Florida, thwarting the democractic process is extremely damaging to society in the long run.
I agree, disenfranchising voters is the worst thing that can happen, but the law's the law and there are ample opportuinites for people to vote, they just choose to not invoke those rights.
Being a newbie programmer, I'd have to say that developing for linux is far more difficult. At least with the different windows libraries and interfaces, there's some good documentation, but the library references for linux libraries are just horrid.