We fight in defense of the freedom of countries other than just our own. It would seem france (small "f" intentional), and a large swath of Europe owes us pretty big for defensive actions. Also, after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, do you think our response was not defensive? I'd say that our "American army", which you hold in such contempt, had a huge role in saving the world on more than one occasion, even despite your "worldly" opinion.
In more recent developments, Iraqis no longer need fear having their skin severely lacerated and then dragged through pits of raw sewage and left to die for political dissension. It's not a perfect place right now, but military action is not utopia-building. It's for removing threats. Saddam was a threat to allies, and attempted on numerous occasions to shoot down U.S. fighter planes which were doing nothing but protecting U.S. allies in the region by enforcing a no-fly zone, which was a condition of ending the first war.
We U.S.A.ians tend to be expected to use our might to "do something" about all the atrocities around the world, but when we do decide to "do something", another group of pissy pansy pukes (you) pop up and pontificate about how terrible we are, and that we aren't defending anything as much as attacking.
In closing, please go suck dead donkey balls you mindless ignorant liberal-fantasy spewing ass pirate.
good for morale:) What a dick. You know, rather than imply that this is so obviously just a further attempt to abuse soldiers and that this isn't good because of the obvious ulterior motives, you might acknowledge that it would benefit a very large group of disabled people. You know, those people to whom you owe your freedom?
The thing is, while you would "try" to stop Hitler through whatever non-lethal and non-permanent means and have some "chance" of stopping him (assuming you could "talk" your way into his inner circle and have had access to Hitler), the world needed a sure thing. Death is the only thing that fit the bill.
Be honest, here. You are so sunk into your own idealism that you, for the sake of nothing but your own faith that you are right, cannot accept that sometimes people must be killed.
I would also say that allowing violence to happen through inaction (i.e. not killing Hitler) is, in itself, a brutal form of violence. While not qualifying for "negligent homicide", I think it ought to be considered a serious jailable crime.
Perhaps we should allow people to die earlier with dignity.
Death with dignity is an important right. To me, it's almost as compelling as the possibility of living longer with dignity. That's why this research is so important.
There is no dignity in death. Death is greedy, messy and selfish. I agree with what you're saying, though.
I would go a step farther, and point out that there's nothing immutable about any facet of aging, and that we should be thinking about senescence as an accumulation of preventable deteriorating processes. Many already do, and as a result, the concept of immortality is only an engineering problem, and not only the realm of crackpots and quacks.
If that's true, then it shouldn't matter if you have men or women doing the job. Especially given that you CAN increase stength (women already have better endurance). Is it not possible for women to lift weights and build muscle?
Ever heard of androgenic hormones? Go look up what they're for, and then go look up what the healthy ranges are in men and in women. It is a biological fact that if those ranges differ significantly (most women have significantly lower androgenic hormone levels), so will their relative muscle mass.
Also, on exercise being the end-all determining factor of muscle mass, you obviously have never seen womens' body building competitions. No woman has even been Arnold sized. EVER. None ever will be.
If you're one of those morons who say there's never been a study of the effect of steroids (and therefore T levels in general) on lean muscle mass, then there's no arguing with you because you ignore the largest body of evidence that ever existed. (men v women)
Do you understand that the world population is set to drastically control itself already? As less developed countries become more developed, their population growth declines because a family's stability no longer relies on having many children.
Population naturally controls itself through scarcity anyway, and that's _way_ better than self proclaimed know-it-alls like you deciding they know how many babies families should have. It's basic biology, so crack open a book, dumb fuck.
I cannot understand why war, overpopulation, global warming and other doomsday theories dominate your views on social science. The fact is that intelligence does not make you an authority on anything requiring knowledge outside your sphere.
War War is, to me, the only thing likely to be the end of civilization besides an extinction level planetary impact, as over time, advances in science increasingly enable us to affect our environment and control energy using the levers of natural law, but whether this can be universalized over time to the extent that a country like North Korea could destroy the usefulness of the entire world to humans and counter attempts by all the others wanting to detect and thwart those efforts is yet to be seen. Getting back to reality, each country has a somewhat static threshold for war which is governed by a combination of roughly three things from the top of my head:
-The resources at hand to fight the war
-The collective will of the populace, as expressed by the sum of all its knowledge, ignorance, logic and insanity
-The will of the leadership, as expressed by the knowledge, ignorance, logic and insanity of the leadership
Sooner or later, however you see it, enough of all of those things erode to the point of being unwilling to continue with war, someone surrenders or is obliterated, and then the population continues to survive despite whatever costs are incurred.
The fact is that civilizations will continue to decide that someone else shouldn't have the freedoms they have, shouldn't exist, or should exist under their rule, and those who would be subject to those whims SHOULD fight! Anyone who says that there should never be war either thinks that fascist countries should always get their way, or thinks that there obviously are no countries that would destroy or take over a peaceful nation. That's just utopian bullshit.
Overpopulation It is a fact that as a civilization becomes more advanced and established that the birthrate shrinks. We in the united states require immigration even to keep our population growth even with our death rate. How does a 1.5 children per two adults equal population growth? China and Japan are heading towards massive population shrinkage, even to the point of crisis.
Global Warming I guess I'd rather not go into global warming, but there is debate as to man's level of involvement on that front. Further, the effect is along the lines of lots of death in third world countries, massive shifts in land values leading to lots of bankruptcy in more developed countries, and possibly other natural disasters. There are some theories about how the flora and fauna would be affected, but the earth's mammalian population seems well suited to survive ice ages and climate shift as evidenced by the past.
Fabric of the universe? Sure, go for it. Cause-headed ignorance and feel-good statements only good for warm fuzzies? Leave it to the idiots with the super-short memories.
Vociemail from "system" confirming legitimacy
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 1
If any actual vonage customers replied, they'd have said that on May 9, a voicemail had been sent from "system" (internal to vonage) that confirmed the legitimacy of the announcement.
Could you !!!FRIST P0ST!!! morons be bothered to check on anything in TFA?
From whois: Registrant: vonage holdings
23 Main Street
Holmdel, NJ 07733
US
Domain Name: VONAGEIPO.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
vonage holdings itadmin@vonage.com
23 Main Street
Holmdel, NJ 07733
US
732-365-2603
Record expires on 25-Apr-2012.
Record created on 20-Feb-2006.
Database last updated on 10-May-2006 10:53:41 EDT.
The real problem that I was alluding to is that, if you are an ectomorph with a small frame, you are probably also genetically predisposed to have support systems geared to it. Your vascular system, endocrine system, and your heart.
Your point is valid, but possibly overstated. Let's not forget we already have what amounts to case studies in people such as Frank Zane, and also in animals such as the Belgian Blue bull {who|that} have under expressed/faulty myostatin gene[s] already. To my knowledge neither have ill effects from their abnormality. Keep in mind, this trait of underexpressed myostatin genes isn't accompanied by traits for a super-charged cardio-vascular system. I'm not saying the concern is invalid, but I am saying there is some evidence that the body simply adapts to the trait.
We continue to learn that our supportive systems are quite adaptive to changes in associated aspects of our physiology. It could very well be that myostatin has the secondary effect (simply because of reduced muscle mass) of reducing the capacity of supportive systems such as connective tissue, capilary growth, etc.
Because neuromuscular response is not likely developed as fast as skeletal muscle, you likely have a chance to develop your tendons as you develop your ability to actually use those muscles.
Not everyone has equal opportunity to get "big". If you're naturally small, you have virtually no chance of getting "big" naturally. You can only improve to a naturally limited ceiling. It's been shown that genetics have the largest role in your body type. Extreme ectomorph's cannot train to have big muscles, period. This discovery changes that completely.
Now that I've said that, here's the other side. If you have 250 lbs of bodyweight, whether it's muscle or fat, your cardiovascular system is stressed with 250 lbs of body weight, period. You need to train your heart and lungs to be able to handle that or you'll die young like a football player. Also, long term research has to be done on increased dietary requirements and the impact on free radicals and the aging process.
On the other side yet again is the inherent loss of body fat. Body fat has been beneficial to survival for relatively short lifespans because you have something to prevent starvation in lean times, but when you extend fatness over a long lifespan you almost guarantee diseases related to clogged arteries and a f*cked endocrine system.
This is a pretty ridiculous and prejudiced remark. Why would brains and muscles have to be mutually exclusive? I myself have an above average IQ, and I make my living off of it. Coincidentally, I also weigh 201 lbs and am working towards 10% body fat. Your comment shows you think the pursuit of muscle has no meaning. Think about how dumb that is the next time you spend hours gaming. The things that are valued for aesthetics have value even if only for that. Having said that, limiting myostatin has benefits _far_ beyond aesthetics.
I don't see that as being a showstopper. If the power grid goes down then you aren't buying gasoline either -- they need electric for their pumps. If the outage is widespread enough then the few stations that still have gas will rapidly run out of it because everybody will rush down to top off their tanks. The only way you'd get screwed with your BEV is if your battery charge was low and you couldn't drive it somewhere that had power for a recharge. But, likewise, with a low gas tank, you might be equally screwed in your gasoline powered car.
In fact gas stations are some of the only businesses likely to have generated power during mass outages. It may even be a regulated thing around here that gas stations have generators.
In any event, I would hope that farther in the future alternative power moves collection, processing and conversion into usable power more local to the consumer decentralizing the whole mess making for a more robust and fault taulerant grid. Of course, current (no pun intended) energy generation techniques aren't suitable for that.
In some (warm) parts of the world alternative fuel cars may be just fine, but where I'm from you can experience a 120hr period where the temperature never goes much above -40F (not including windchill), and nothing but petrol seems to work very well.
Another complication is again is the fragile power grid. One ice storm brought the whole grid for a quarter of the state down, and it was weeks until all areas had power back. New York had a bit of a problem a ways back too as I recall.
On top of all that it seems like styling and mechanical engineers for electric cars are always asked to use a diaper clad toddler as the inspiration for both the look and the performance (not talking about efficiency here) of the electric car.
I'll simply say this: From my perspective electric cars blow goats, but they may be great for you.
How can you say that electric power is more efficient than gasoline when you fail completely to account for the inefficiencies of the electric power distribution grid, the inefficiencies of generating said power in some non-nuke plants, the various down-transformations the power goes through in the distribution of said power, and the fact that whole of the current grid could not possibly handle the load of even most people having electric cars?
I'm sorry, but unless you think big picture you're not helping.
Second, the UN is ineffective because the US refuses to fund it
All nations have the right AND responsibility to refuse to fund specific activities which go contrary to its interests, including the US.
Third, its the fucking US's fault that the UN can't do things correctly... we veto every fuckin bill.
Uh huh... Everything. Right.
Fourth, the UN has been successful in doing a ton of shit. Google 'UN accomplishments'
Largely because of our money and resources. Actually, the UN would be laughable (well, it is anyway) without our $$$ and military support.
Fifth, the UN is only international body encompassing the most countries in the world. It's the ONLY chance we have of globally fighting issues such as nuclear arms proliferation, global warming, etc.
It's also the only world wide organization which would have Syria and China as head of human rights counsel or whatever, because they just go in alphabetical order. I suppose the UN is "globally" doing lots about North Korea's nukes, huh? Our fault you say? North Korea went back on their deal first, we knew about it, and we were sheepish about keeping up our end, since we knew they were simply developing the weapons they said they weren't going to anyway. The truth is, the only way to deal with nukes is with the interested parties. Japan, China, South Korea, etc etc, and us (US), but more the others than us.
Sixth, which organization did we turn to when the huge tsunami happened in southeast asia? None other then the UN.
Which country contrbiuted the most?
I openly invite any responses or flames as to why the UN might be a bad organization... you will get owned on this debate.
Owned? Don't think so... Let's not forget the UN seems to think it can tax sovereign nations. Don't think so.
Remember what the UN is. It's a group of UNELECTED polititions representing in large part dictatorships which by the very definition are oppressive to their people. The UN is BAD, case closed. To be clear, the UN, by its definition, do not represent any people, only unelected officials, whether or not they support AND practice female genital mutilation, genecide, legal raping of women accused of adultary, torture, the list goes on.
Here's the thing... Yes, E17 libs are super great, but when are they going to be stable enough to base a toolkit or application on where user rely on it?
We can't even measure it in each other, because we really don't know of any measurable physical properties that may determine the presence of consciousness. And because we don't know how to measure it, we cannot know if we've already created it. Not you, nor anyone here on slashdot or anywhere else. For all we know, modern silicon-based CPUs already have some (very) dim, glimmering cognitive awareness of sorts. We really do not know. It is completely unfounded for anyone to claim that it has not happened yet (or likewise that it has happened) if we don't even have a clue what it really is or how to measure its existence. Heck, it's so elusive we don't even have a rational definition for it.
Huh? We know with certainty what goes on inside a CPU, as they do exactly what they are designed to do. Inside a circuits there will be conditions where the state is undefined (if you know about karnaugh maps you know what I mean), but that is the closest thing we have to random in our physical world. The key to the fact that we do in fact know what a CPU does is that the unknown parts in the circuit do not have a bearing on the known parts, and the unknown parts do not "communicate" with each other. By your logic, I guess we don't know if our toaster feels spurned when we don't have toast, as it does not have eyebrows.
Commission a poll from Gallup that correlates Party ID with this question: "Do you approve or disapprove of interracial marriage?" You'll have all the answers you need about which party contains the most racists.
You seem to be saying that if one party has more racists, that means the party itself is racist or has a platform more friendly to racists. What you don't get is that racists are by definition very stupid, and not qualified to be definitive of every organization they join.
Another point I would like to make is that the demoncratic party loves racial prejudice, quotas, etc. Whatever the intent, it's racial discrimination just the same, and more so because it's purpose is for "getting even".
Slashdot Mirror
We fight in defense of the freedom of countries other than just our own. It would seem france (small "f" intentional), and a large swath of Europe owes us pretty big for defensive actions. Also, after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, do you think our response was not defensive? I'd say that our "American army", which you hold in such contempt, had a huge role in saving the world on more than one occasion, even despite your "worldly" opinion.
In more recent developments, Iraqis no longer need fear having their skin severely lacerated and then dragged through pits of raw sewage and left to die for political dissension. It's not a perfect place right now, but military action is not utopia-building. It's for removing threats. Saddam was a threat to allies, and attempted on numerous occasions to shoot down U.S. fighter planes which were doing nothing but protecting U.S. allies in the region by enforcing a no-fly zone, which was a condition of ending the first war.
We U.S.A.ians tend to be expected to use our might to "do something" about all the atrocities around the world, but when we do decide to "do something", another group of pissy pansy pukes (you) pop up and pontificate about how terrible we are, and that we aren't defending anything as much as attacking.
In closing, please go suck dead donkey balls you mindless ignorant liberal-fantasy spewing ass pirate.
good for morale
The thing is, while you would "try" to stop Hitler through whatever non-lethal and non-permanent means and have some "chance" of stopping him (assuming you could "talk" your way into his inner circle and have had access to Hitler), the world needed a sure thing. Death is the only thing that fit the bill.
Be honest, here. You are so sunk into your own idealism that you, for the sake of nothing but your own faith that you are right, cannot accept that sometimes people must be killed.
I would also say that allowing violence to happen through inaction (i.e. not killing Hitler) is, in itself, a brutal form of violence. While not qualifying for "negligent homicide", I think it ought to be considered a serious jailable crime.
In closing, you're an idiot.
I would go a step farther, and point out that there's nothing immutable about any facet of aging, and that we should be thinking about senescence as an accumulation of preventable deteriorating processes. Many already do, and as a result, the concept of immortality is only an engineering problem, and not only the realm of crackpots and quacks.
If that's true, then it shouldn't matter if you have men or women doing the job. Especially given that you CAN increase stength (women already have better endurance). Is it not possible for women to lift weights and build muscle?
Ever heard of androgenic hormones? Go look up what they're for, and then go look up what the healthy ranges are in men and in women. It is a biological fact that if those ranges differ significantly (most women have significantly lower androgenic hormone levels), so will their relative muscle mass.
Also, on exercise being the end-all determining factor of muscle mass, you obviously have never seen womens' body building competitions. No woman has even been Arnold sized. EVER. None ever will be.
If you're one of those morons who say there's never been a study of the effect of steroids (and therefore T levels in general) on lean muscle mass, then there's no arguing with you because you ignore the largest body of evidence that ever existed. (men v women)
...or rather, to not walk at all. Well, unless it learned how to walk on its elbows/knees.
I have you now, little one...
Sincerely,
Progressive Auto Insurance
Are you really this stupid?
Do you understand that the world population is set to drastically control itself already? As less developed countries become more developed, their population growth declines because a family's stability no longer relies on having many children.
Population naturally controls itself through scarcity anyway, and that's _way_ better than self proclaimed know-it-alls like you deciding they know how many babies families should have. It's basic biology, so crack open a book, dumb fuck.
Don't forget Gopher! Go U of M!
Dear Mr Hawking,
I cannot understand why war, overpopulation, global warming and other doomsday theories dominate your views on social science. The fact is that intelligence does not make you an authority on anything requiring knowledge outside your sphere.
War
War is, to me, the only thing likely to be the end of civilization besides an extinction level planetary impact, as over time, advances in science increasingly enable us to affect our environment and control energy using the levers of natural law, but whether this can be universalized over time to the extent that a country like North Korea could destroy the usefulness of the entire world to humans and counter attempts by all the others wanting to detect and thwart those efforts is yet to be seen. Getting back to reality, each country has a somewhat static threshold for war which is governed by a combination of roughly three things from the top of my head:
-The resources at hand to fight the war
-The collective will of the populace, as expressed by the sum of all its knowledge, ignorance, logic and insanity
-The will of the leadership, as expressed by the knowledge, ignorance, logic and insanity of the leadership
Sooner or later, however you see it, enough of all of those things erode to the point of being unwilling to continue with war, someone surrenders or is obliterated, and then the population continues to survive despite whatever costs are incurred.
The fact is that civilizations will continue to decide that someone else shouldn't have the freedoms they have, shouldn't exist, or should exist under their rule, and those who would be subject to those whims SHOULD fight! Anyone who says that there should never be war either thinks that fascist countries should always get their way, or thinks that there obviously are no countries that would destroy or take over a peaceful nation. That's just utopian bullshit.
Overpopulation
It is a fact that as a civilization becomes more advanced and established that the birthrate shrinks. We in the united states require immigration even to keep our population growth even with our death rate. How does a 1.5 children per two adults equal population growth? China and Japan are heading towards massive population shrinkage, even to the point of crisis.
Global Warming
I guess I'd rather not go into global warming, but there is debate as to man's level of involvement on that front. Further, the effect is along the lines of lots of death in third world countries, massive shifts in land values leading to lots of bankruptcy in more developed countries, and possibly other natural disasters. There are some theories about how the flora and fauna would be affected, but the earth's mammalian population seems well suited to survive ice ages and climate shift as evidenced by the past.
Fabric of the universe? Sure, go for it. Cause-headed ignorance and feel-good statements only good for warm fuzzies? Leave it to the idiots with the super-short memories.
If any actual vonage customers replied, they'd have said that on May 9, a voicemail had been sent from "system" (internal to vonage) that confirmed the legitimacy of the announcement.
Could you !!!FRIST P0ST!!! morons be bothered to check on anything in TFA?
From whois:
Registrant:
vonage holdings
23 Main Street
Holmdel, NJ 07733
US
Domain Name: VONAGEIPO.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
vonage holdings itadmin@vonage.com
23 Main Street
Holmdel, NJ 07733
US
732-365-2603
Record expires on 25-Apr-2012.
Record created on 20-Feb-2006.
Database last updated on 10-May-2006 10:53:41 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS1-NYC.VONAGE.NET 216.115.31.140
AUTH00.KEWR0.S.VONAGENETWORKS.NET 69.59.252.42
AUTH01.KEWR0.S.VONAGENETWORKS.NET 216.115.30.40
We continue to learn that our supportive systems are quite adaptive to changes in associated aspects of our physiology. It could very well be that myostatin has the secondary effect (simply because of reduced muscle mass) of reducing the capacity of supportive systems such as connective tissue, capilary growth, etc.
Because neuromuscular response is not likely developed as fast as skeletal muscle, you likely have a chance to develop your tendons as you develop your ability to actually use those muscles.
Not everyone has equal opportunity to get "big". If you're naturally small, you have virtually no chance of getting "big" naturally. You can only improve to a naturally limited ceiling. It's been shown that genetics have the largest role in your body type. Extreme ectomorph's cannot train to have big muscles, period. This discovery changes that completely.
Now that I've said that, here's the other side. If you have 250 lbs of bodyweight, whether it's muscle or fat, your cardiovascular system is stressed with 250 lbs of body weight, period. You need to train your heart and lungs to be able to handle that or you'll die young like a football player. Also, long term research has to be done on increased dietary requirements and the impact on free radicals and the aging process.
On the other side yet again is the inherent loss of body fat. Body fat has been beneficial to survival for relatively short lifespans because you have something to prevent starvation in lean times, but when you extend fatness over a long lifespan you almost guarantee diseases related to clogged arteries and a f*cked endocrine system.
This is a pretty ridiculous and prejudiced remark. Why would brains and muscles have to be mutually exclusive? I myself have an above average IQ, and I make my living off of it. Coincidentally, I also weigh 201 lbs and am working towards 10% body fat. Your comment shows you think the pursuit of muscle has no meaning. Think about how dumb that is the next time you spend hours gaming. The things that are valued for aesthetics have value even if only for that. Having said that, limiting myostatin has benefits _far_ beyond aesthetics.
I don't see that as being a showstopper. If the power grid goes down then you aren't buying gasoline either -- they need electric for their pumps. If the outage is widespread enough then the few stations that still have gas will rapidly run out of it because everybody will rush down to top off their tanks. The only way you'd get screwed with your BEV is if your battery charge was low and you couldn't drive it somewhere that had power for a recharge. But, likewise, with a low gas tank, you might be equally screwed in your gasoline powered car.
In fact gas stations are some of the only businesses likely to have generated power during mass outages. It may even be a regulated thing around here that gas stations have generators.
In any event, I would hope that farther in the future alternative power moves collection, processing and conversion into usable power more local to the consumer decentralizing the whole mess making for a more robust and fault taulerant grid. Of course, current (no pun intended) energy generation techniques aren't suitable for that.
In some (warm) parts of the world alternative fuel cars may be just fine, but where I'm from you can experience a 120hr period where the temperature never goes much above -40F (not including windchill), and nothing but petrol seems to work very well.
Another complication is again is the fragile power grid. One ice storm brought the whole grid for a quarter of the state down, and it was weeks until all areas had power back. New York had a bit of a problem a ways back too as I recall.
On top of all that it seems like styling and mechanical engineers for electric cars are always asked to use a diaper clad toddler as the inspiration for both the look and the performance (not talking about efficiency here) of the electric car.
I'll simply say this: From my perspective electric cars blow goats, but they may be great for you.
Why is down transformation a problem? Because step-down transformers are not 100% efficient, and it happens in every neighborhood.
How can you say that electric power is more efficient than gasoline when you fail completely to account for the inefficiencies of the electric power distribution grid, the inefficiencies of generating said power in some non-nuke plants, the various down-transformations the power goes through in the distribution of said power, and the fact that whole of the current grid could not possibly handle the load of even most people having electric cars?
I'm sorry, but unless you think big picture you're not helping.
Remember what the UN is. It's a group of UNELECTED polititions representing in large part dictatorships which by the very definition are oppressive to their people. The UN is BAD, case closed. To be clear, the UN, by its definition, do not represent any people, only unelected officials, whether or not they support AND practice female genital mutilation, genecide, legal raping of women accused of adultary, torture, the list goes on.
Consider yourself OWNED.
Here's the thing... Yes, E17 libs are super great, but when are they going to be stable enough to base a toolkit or application on where user rely on it?
We can't even measure it in each other, because we really don't know of any measurable physical properties that may determine the presence of consciousness. And because we don't know how to measure it, we cannot know if we've already created it. Not you, nor anyone here on slashdot or anywhere else. For all we know, modern silicon-based CPUs already have some (very) dim, glimmering cognitive awareness of sorts. We really do not know. It is completely unfounded for anyone to claim that it has not happened yet (or likewise that it has happened) if we don't even have a clue what it really is or how to measure its existence. Heck, it's so elusive we don't even have a rational definition for it.
Huh? We know with certainty what goes on inside a CPU, as they do exactly what they are designed to do. Inside a circuits there will be conditions where the state is undefined (if you know about karnaugh maps you know what I mean), but that is the closest thing we have to random in our physical world. The key to the fact that we do in fact know what a CPU does is that the unknown parts in the circuit do not have a bearing on the known parts, and the unknown parts do not "communicate" with each other. By your logic, I guess we don't know if our toaster feels spurned when we don't have toast, as it does not have eyebrows.
Commission a poll from Gallup that correlates Party ID with this question: "Do you approve or disapprove of interracial marriage?" You'll have all the answers you need about which party contains the most racists.
You seem to be saying that if one party has more racists, that means the party itself is racist or has a platform more friendly to racists. What you don't get is that racists are by definition very stupid, and not qualified to be definitive of every organization they join.
Another point I would like to make is that the demoncratic party loves racial prejudice, quotas, etc. Whatever the intent, it's racial discrimination just the same, and more so because it's purpose is for "getting even".
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
They have one for each state, like this:
http://www.eros-minn.com/eros.htm
They even have escorts for you if you need help installing.
However, if just one such error occured in each of Ohio's counties (88) then Bush would have 350K extra votes.
Any statisticion would agree that it would be a stupid assumption to make.
Is this a secret menu not generally known, or is it easy to find on the WEGA? I have a 32" Zenith and I can find no such adjustment.
It seems to me the likelihood of being either murdered or becoming a victim of serious assault is at least twice as high in Canada.
Canada still sucks.