> BZZT Wrong (A) The old standard was found
> dangerous years ago, Clinton just took forever
> because he was too busy with interns to care about
> people getting cancer.
Nahhh, I think he knew it was not cost-effective by any means, so he implemented it at the last second knowing Bush would have to roll it (and many others) back, and, true to form, intellectual patsies cried pointlessly over the evils of Bush.
Bush is a buffoon, but I'd rather have someone that bumbles into the correct decisions most of the time than someone who bumbles into the incorrect ones.
> People in the U.S. don't even have the
> constitutional right to have their votes counted.
Oh, they certainly do! What the government is not authorized to do, however, is declare bad votes for two candidates to be a vote for one candidate over the other, the politically correct candidate.
> Not that anyone really noticed until the
> landslide winner didn't get the presidency.
To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a national presidential election with a landslide winner since Bush, Sr., won in '88. Perhaps you are not speaking of the US?
> At this point, what's legal in the U.S. is
> anybody's guess because it's hard to tell what
> sort of nonsense the courts are going to come up
> with
This has been the case for decades with the courts pulling things out of their ass for quite some time. Saying the Constitution is a "living document" that, without alteration, can be suddenly reinterpreted as authorizing massive redistribution of wealth (as one example) is sophistry of the "nonsense" type of which you speak. Welcome aboard!
It is true that underlings in the Justice Department will go too far on their own sometimes (anyone remember the hairy guy with a Hooters outfit on on billboards, "Brought to you by the Clinton Administration"?)
However, Clinton reversed that decision quickly himself, and Bush hasn't for this. (I'm not saying that he should, but that he hasn't indicates that he has taken responsibility for it whether he issued the edict directly or not.) So that it's Bush's responsibility is correct.
> US stuff like cell phones and mass transit are
> compared to US.
The US needs mass transit the way a fish needs a raincoat.
As for cell phones, we have them over here, including GSM now, which has been here for several years, and is really taking off. And more and more homes aren't even using land lines anymore, since you can get cell phones with 1500 minutes anywhere in the country for "almost free" charges per month, which is actually cheaper than any land line offers, and I'll bet much cheaper than anything in Europe offers for their cell phones.
> Whats worse though is what they have done to god's
> own food. chocolate!
You mean cutting it with milk to lower the cost, then putting "Milk Chocolate" on the labels as if it were a good thing, rather than a cheap thing to do? And fools go, "Gee, it's MILK chocolate!" as if that is better?
I also hate chili cut with beans for much the same reason.
> It could just as easily mean both the woman and
> the premature child. Premature could still live.
> It just depends on how premature
Gee, I wish God were a little more precise.
I say that if the baby were born of this and died, then there still is no injury because God could have made the baby live, even if 8 months premature.
Sorry, you still owe taxes on barter transactions.
Remember, they don't want you in jail. They just want your money.
Re:We need more court cases like this.
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 1
> Hendrickson: "Fine, I'll sue your asses for not
> treating me with the respect I deserve."
eBay: You do realize that we have enough cash to buy hour-long ads during the Superbowl, don't you?
Re:eBay is and old idea on new Tech, not so with N
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I'd bet Napster infringement was more on the order of 10,000:1.
> Since when is making a backup of your music in
> digital format the wrong thing to do?
Since, with odds of 10,000:1, you were actually stealing the music rather than just "backing up" stuff you already had. This is the slashdot sophistry the man was talking about.
> the constitution applies to hateful bigotted and closed minded scum as well.
Not necessarily. Evidently kidnapping someone, raping them, and sawing off their head while they're still alive is much worse if you hate them racially than if you do it to steal $5.00 from them.
> And it is, eternally a Jewish state, promised by
> G-d to the Jewish people.
Why does God get such a boner for that little plot of land, anyway? There are plenty of farms in this country larger than that. You're talking city-state sized areas of land.
Yes, but the televangelist preocupation with homosexuality isn't that men are having sex out of wedlock. It's that they're having sex with other men, which IS one of those laws that was blown away along with cricket eating, burning doves because you had your period, etc.
> The DOD definition of terrorism is:
> "the calculated use of violence or the threat of
> violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or
> to intimidate governments or societies in the
> pursuit of goals that are generally political,
> religious, or ideological."
I.e. speak softly and carry a big stick. The US is a terrorist country under that definition. So, to, are virtually all countries.
Whether it is a physical defect or not, and whether it can be "cured" or not are purely scientific concepts, and have nothing to do with rights.
You have the right to consentual activity with other adults for any reason whatsoever. Whether you were born that way, or "decided to change", or just had your fantasies wander afar over the years are all interesting, but have no bearing on the rights issue.
>> Homosexuality and gender identity are conditions
>> of birth...
>
> Ah, lets think about this for a second... no.
>
> The "homosexuality gene" turned out to be a fraud.
Have no idea whether that's true or not, IANAS. It's also true that the scientific claim about "at birth or within the first three years after" became "before birth almost always" which became "before birth".
And all for what? To use science to justify homosexuality. Although there is a certain fight-fire-with-fire justification about this, that it turned and twisted until it was scientifically meaningless was politics, and not science.
The proper reason for not outlawing homosexuality has nothing to do with science. It has to do with free people not creating a government that intrudes on the consentual decisions of themselves.
You have this right, and many others, not because of science, or because of having enough votes, or because of having a set of Justices that one year or another happen to vote your way.
You have them because to say you don't have them is the same as saying others, by right of existence, have the right to dictate these things to you, and that is silly.
Sign below those who disagree:
_______________________ I agree to allow others to dictate my sexual activities.
> I find it very difficult to believe that a
> person can live entirely on the resources
> provided by an arbitrary area 2000 square feet
> in size
They don't live that way, of course.
Capitalism will solve this problem easily (which is the point of arguments like this, and from whence they came.) For example, people wouldn't each live on 2000 ft^^2. They'd build big buildings called "apartments" and move into them, leaving tons of land for something called "farming". Real farming, for profit.
By the time you reach a point of ridiculousness, say 10 trillion people, humanity will easily be able to move out to the stars. Even then, it's doubtful they'd have problems remaining on-planet. The more people, in a free society, the better. Free is key here, and is something that never enters into most commentator's opinions, which are the basis for communist and socialist command-and-control economies.
> What most professed christians forget is that when
> Jesus Christ died, the Law of Moses died with him.
> That means that all the stuff that you referred
> to in Leviticus was done away with
The argument goes like this:
1. "The Bible's OT says homosexuality is wrong!"
2. But that Bible also says to eat crickets, not eat pork, burn doves to purify yourself after a thousand and one stupid things, and so on, and you don't do that.
3. "But Jesus Christ created a new covenant with Mankind, so those old laws were blown away!"
Slashdot Mirror
> BZZT Wrong (A) The old standard was found
> dangerous years ago, Clinton just took forever
> because he was too busy with interns to care about
> people getting cancer.
Nahhh, I think he knew it was not cost-effective by any means, so he implemented it at the last second knowing Bush would have to roll it (and many others) back, and, true to form, intellectual patsies cried pointlessly over the evils of Bush.
Bush is a buffoon, but I'd rather have someone that bumbles into the correct decisions most of the time than someone who bumbles into the incorrect ones.
> People in the U.S. don't even have the
> constitutional right to have their votes counted.
Oh, they certainly do! What the government is not authorized to do, however, is declare bad votes for two candidates to be a vote for one candidate over the other, the politically correct candidate.
> Not that anyone really noticed until the
> landslide winner didn't get the presidency.
To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a national presidential election with a landslide winner since Bush, Sr., won in '88. Perhaps you are not speaking of the US?
> At this point, what's legal in the U.S. is
> anybody's guess because it's hard to tell what
> sort of nonsense the courts are going to come up
> with
This has been the case for decades with the courts pulling things out of their ass for quite some time. Saying the Constitution is a "living document" that, without alteration, can be suddenly reinterpreted as authorizing massive redistribution of wealth (as one example) is sophistry of the "nonsense" type of which you speak. Welcome aboard!
> The "right-wing" is and always has been
> pro-business.
Thank god someone is.
It is true that underlings in the Justice Department will go too far on their own sometimes (anyone remember the hairy guy with a Hooters outfit on on billboards, "Brought to you by the Clinton Administration"?)
However, Clinton reversed that decision quickly himself, and Bush hasn't for this. (I'm not saying that he should, but that he hasn't indicates that he has taken responsibility for it whether he issued the edict directly or not.) So that it's Bush's responsibility is correct.
I checked on this, too, to see if I was a fool for not buying MS. Whew! No stock surge.
> Second, I find it hard to believe that you can't
> find cars whizzing around at 200+ MPH at least a
> little bit interesting.
"Whizzing around at 200+ MPH" is very interesting to anyone, of course.
It's just when it turns into "whizzing around...and around...and around...and around...and around..."
My (immediate future) brother-in-law, when asked what he was doing for the weekend some weekends ago, responded, "But it's Taledega day!"
Well, duh. Of course it is.
> US stuff like cell phones and mass transit are
> compared to US.
The US needs mass transit the way a fish needs a raincoat.
As for cell phones, we have them over here, including GSM now, which has been here for several years, and is really taking off. And more and more homes aren't even using land lines anymore, since you can get cell phones with 1500 minutes anywhere in the country for "almost free" charges per month, which is actually cheaper than any land line offers, and I'll bet much cheaper than anything in Europe offers for their cell phones.
> Whats worse though is what they have done to god's
> own food. chocolate!
You mean cutting it with milk to lower the cost, then putting "Milk Chocolate" on the labels as if it were a good thing, rather than a cheap thing to do? And fools go, "Gee, it's MILK chocolate!" as if that is better?
I also hate chili cut with beans for much the same reason.
> It could just as easily mean both the woman and
> the premature child. Premature could still live.
> It just depends on how premature
Gee, I wish God were a little more precise.
I say that if the baby were born of this and died, then there still is no injury because God could have made the baby live, even if 8 months premature.
Sorry, you still owe taxes on barter transactions.
Remember, they don't want you in jail. They just want your money.
> Hendrickson: "Fine, I'll sue your asses for not
> treating me with the respect I deserve."
eBay: You do realize that we have enough cash to buy hour-long ads during the Superbowl, don't you?
I'd bet Napster infringement was more on the order of 10,000:1.
> Since when is making a backup of your music in
> digital format the wrong thing to do?
Since, with odds of 10,000:1, you were actually stealing the music rather than just "backing up" stuff you already had. This is the slashdot sophistry the man was talking about.
Oops, forgot that "Plain Old Text" is actually a lie.
"Instead of destroying (something or other), let's just destroy Belgium instead!"
...and if your post isn't correct, well, you should have clicked the submit a damned bug button first!
but me, a stupid American, had to have explained.
"Instead of destroying , let's just destroy Belgium instead!"
Laughter is a biological response to nervousness.
> the constitution applies to hateful bigotted and closed minded scum as well.
Not necessarily. Evidently kidnapping someone, raping them, and sawing off their head while they're still alive is much worse if you hate them racially than if you do it to steal $5.00 from them.
> And it is, eternally a Jewish state, promised by
> G-d to the Jewish people.
Why does God get such a boner for that little plot of land, anyway? There are plenty of farms in this country larger than that. You're talking city-state sized areas of land.
Yes, but the televangelist preocupation with homosexuality isn't that men are having sex out of wedlock. It's that they're having sex with other men, which IS one of those laws that was blown away along with cricket eating, burning doves because you had your period, etc.
> The DOD definition of terrorism is:
> "the calculated use of violence or the threat of
> violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or
> to intimidate governments or societies in the
> pursuit of goals that are generally political,
> religious, or ideological."
I.e. speak softly and carry a big stick. The US is a terrorist country under that definition. So, to, are virtually all countries.
> The only place where they stop all TV just to show a live car chase.
Remember, they wouldn't do it if you didn't watch.
Whether it is a physical defect or not, and whether it can be "cured" or not are purely scientific concepts, and have nothing to do with rights.
You have the right to consentual activity with other adults for any reason whatsoever. Whether you were born that way, or "decided to change", or just had your fantasies wander afar over the years are all interesting, but have no bearing on the rights issue.
>> Homosexuality and gender identity are conditions ... no.
>> of birth...
>
> Ah, lets think about this for a second
>
> The "homosexuality gene" turned out to be a fraud.
Have no idea whether that's true or not, IANAS. It's also true that the scientific claim about "at birth or within the first three years after" became "before birth almost always" which became "before birth".
And all for what? To use science to justify homosexuality. Although there is a certain fight-fire-with-fire justification about this, that it turned and twisted until it was scientifically meaningless was politics, and not science.
The proper reason for not outlawing homosexuality has nothing to do with science. It has to do with free people not creating a government that intrudes on the consentual decisions of themselves.
You have this right, and many others, not because of science, or because of having enough votes, or because of having a set of Justices that one year or another happen to vote your way.
You have them because to say you don't have them is the same as saying others, by right of existence, have the right to dictate these things to you, and that is silly.
Sign below those who disagree:
_______________________ I agree to allow others to dictate my sexual activities.
> I find it very difficult to believe that a
> person can live entirely on the resources
> provided by an arbitrary area 2000 square feet
> in size
They don't live that way, of course.
Capitalism will solve this problem easily (which is the point of arguments like this, and from whence they came.) For example, people wouldn't each live on 2000 ft^^2. They'd build big buildings called "apartments" and move into them, leaving tons of land for something called "farming". Real farming, for profit.
By the time you reach a point of ridiculousness, say 10 trillion people, humanity will easily be able to move out to the stars. Even then, it's doubtful they'd have problems remaining on-planet. The more people, in a free society, the better. Free is key here, and is something that never enters into most commentator's opinions, which are the basis for communist and socialist command-and-control economies.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> What most professed christians forget is that when
> Jesus Christ died, the Law of Moses died with him.
> That means that all the stuff that you referred
> to in Leviticus was done away with
The argument goes like this:
1. "The Bible's OT says homosexuality is wrong!"
2. But that Bible also says to eat crickets, not eat pork, burn doves to purify yourself after a thousand and one stupid things, and so on, and you don't do that.
3. "But Jesus Christ created a new covenant with Mankind, so those old laws were blown away!"
Let's take the next logical step, shall we?
4. Then why maintain just a favored few?
> [The Bible] also say literally dozens of absurd things,
> like those that I listed.
One of the best books I've ever read is this one.