However, Iraq was a *sovereign nation* that we had no legitimate reason to invade
Iraq lost its right to sovereignty when it
invaded Kuwait, and failed to comply with
terms of the Gulf War I cease fire.
Iraq was chased out of Kuwait by a
U.N. sanctioned force, and
signed a cease fire, not a peace
treaty.
That cease fire agreement had
terms and conditions which Iraq was not in
compliance with. Kind of like how a paroled
criminal, is forcibly if necessary, returned
to prison if he violates the terms.
In the judgement of the
world, the sovereignty of Kuwait was violated.
If we value sovereignty, we
have to enforce punishment for violations
of sovereignty. Letting Iraq off the hook
for its cease fire agreement, would weaken
the concept of national sovereignty, and in
the endanger the national sovereignty of
the countries we live in.
And that is the sole legitimate argument necessary for
invading Iraq. The ones about WMDs, brutal
regime, terrorism, are superfluous.
(You did notice that Libya, a frequent violater of
its neighbors' sovereignty, is now rehabilitating
itself as a nation that respects sovereignty?)
BTW, wasn't Yugoslavia a sovereign nation?
Unlike Iraq, Yugoslavia did not invade
it's neighbors.
And yet, the U.N. sent forces to Bosnia,
along with the U.S., and NATO along with the
U.S. (and without U.N. approval by the way)
pounded Serbia with an air war.
I mention this, because I wonder if you
were against the war on Yugoslavia. I
was, and remain so, for the reasons you gave,
plus that it gives other countries a pretext
to violate our countries' sovereignty once
we start doing something that is disagreeable.
I question why you think that justifies the blood of 10,000 innocent people on our hands. Is it your argument that Saddam Hussein would have slain 10,000 more people in this time period?
Yes, more than 10,000 people would have died
under sanctions and Saddam.
(Why do uninformed people get modded 5,
and the best I can get is a 2?)
So would you rather 10,000 died or 1.5M more
died?
Of course, the 1.5M figure is probably B.S..
Even if is closer to 100,000, it is more than 10,000
(which is probably another B.S. figure, got
a source, and a break down of how many were
killed by "combatant rebels"?).
And by this logic, instituting a draft would eliminate this alternative, since rich white boy would slinging the M16 that poor, jobless, uneducated dude wouldn't have.
> John Ashcroft received several deferments > during Vietnam. One was a critical occupation > deferment for teaching business law at a > Missouri college.
And John Ashcroft's son is an ensign in the US Navy, and did a tour in the Gulf, and apparently is going back.
> er. the law, which is what we're discussing > here, only applies to people. can a horse be > charged with murder?
At least one ethicsist, Peter Singer, argues that chimpanzees of normal intelligence ought to have more rights than mentally retarded humans. Assuming you aren't arguing that the retarded should be banned from marrying other humans, it follows that chimps and humans should be able to marry.
It would also be hard to argue why chimps and horses couldn't marry. Therefore, by transitivity livestock and humans should be able to marry.
That we aren't giving livestock rights or require that they submit tax returns is only because human society has arbitrarily dictated that, just as it dictates that a human in a vegatative state can have wealth, must pay taxes, and in most states, has the right to life.
As for charging animals with murder, we routinely, and without due process for wild animals, kill those who have killed (or might kill) humans. We often have trials to determine if killer domestic dogs should be put to death. Many of us were appalled, when this year, a cougar who hadn't done anything but wander from the hills into residential Palo Alto, was callously shot deadby the police.
Full due process for wild bears and cougars is a matter of time. You lose the argument.
That takes are of bestiality. As for polygamy, what if I want to marry a cojoinmed twin, and vice versa. Isn't it ridiculous that the other twin should remain single? There's a much more practical argument for letting me be married to a both conjoined twins, since they are a single organism, despite what the law says, then for letting gays marry. So that takes care of that. Now the conjoined twins take advantage of medical advances and are separated. Is my marriage to both now void? Of course not. But if I can be in a marriage with two wives, who happen to be sisters, then any sisters, conjoined or not should be able to marry the same person. And once we've extended that right to singlings, unrelated people will argue for the same right.
Then what about bi-sexuals? Why should their emotional needs be any less than those of gays. They should be able to marry at least one person of each gender.
Frankly, I don't care if people want to marry their vibrators. But as another submitter said, the costs of entering into these non-traditional relationships should be born by the individuals, and not society. At least, not until socieity has a few thousand years to adjust to it.
Anyone who labels this as a false slippery slope is betting that there are no judges that agree. It is for certain that laws against polygamy, polyandy, group marriage, bestiality, marriage with underaged but mentally mature children, etc. are all going to be overturned in the courts.
> Also, the much of the rest of the > world still has laws about media > fairness and impartiality
True, fairness and impartiality as defined by organizations like the CRTC (which routinely kicks "shock jocks" off the air).
> By Canadian standards I'm part of > the third largest political party > in the country
You're a member of the Bloc Quebecois party?:-)
> platform and issues matter
Let's be serious for moment. From the world's perspective, the "nuanced" differences between Bush and Kerry don't add up to all the rats you can find in Alberta. Kerry will keep soldiers in Iraq. Kerry will lean on North Korea. Kerry won't implement Kyoto (he voted against it in the 95-0 Senate vote). Kerry isn't going let Canadian softwood lumber into the US, nor is he going to role back U.S. farm subsidies. Kerry is going to assert right of free seas to the Northwest Passage. Kerry is going to be pissed off at Chirac when he refuses to help out in Iraq. Kerry if anything, is going to pound the Taliban harder than Bush. Kerry is going to lean on Canada for more peace keeping soldiers. Kerry isn't going to force Minnesota to stop its Manitoba flooding water projects. Etc.
What exactly is different as far as relations with Canada between Bush and Clinton, and why do you think Kerry is going to put the rights of Canadians ahead of American interests? So Ottawa won't call Kerry a moron. The guy wants to be president for 8 years, not 4.
I'm sure Kerry loves to be loved by foreigners, as much as Bush doesn't care if he's loved by them or not. So?
> However, Bush is much more reliant > on his aides
As compared to who? President Bartlett? Bush, the guy who wants a gay marriage amendement against the wishes of his VP who has a lesbian daughter? What evidence supports your assertion?
> You criticize Edwards for inadequate > international experience. Tell me, how > does a one-term US Senator compare with > a one-and-a-half-term Texas Governor > in international experience?
Where did I criticize his international experience. I pointed out his inexperience, period. Just as you probably criticized Dan Quayle's experience in '88.
I'm less concerned about 1-2 term governors running the country than 1 term senators because:
1. governors are the chief exec of their state,
with economies larger than most countries.
Senators are the boss of maybe 10-20 people
on their staff. And a single term Senator
will never chair a major committee.
2. we have plenty of existence proofs of
governors doing an OK job of being president.
Whereas we've few (are there any... JFK
had 8 years in the senate for a total of
14 years in Congress) such proofs for
single term senators, especially ones who
have never held any other political office,
or run a corporation [I.e. John Corzinne
is much more qualified than Edwards].
Sorry.
In any case, Bush isn't just 1.5 term governor. He is the sitting president. I notice that you didn't question Cheney's qualifications to be president. That would have been as laughable as me questioning Kerry's qualifications, which you'll notice I didn't question. Clearly, of the 4 people running for national office, Edwards is the light weight. If I were considering voting for the Democratic ticket, Edwards' inexperience wouldn't bug me because the odds of him taking office due to Kerry leaving office prematurely are close to zero.
Asserting that this VP election is a big deal when the asserter is likely an Edwards fan and Cheney hater is a hoot. When Edwards runs a war like Gulf War I, get back with me.
> This election everyone really, really should [care about the VP debate]
Why does an unqualified opinion get modded up?
The VP role has historically been a do nothing job. People like to think that Cheney is the power behind the throne, but it is more likely that Karl Rove sets policy than Cheney.
The odds are very high the VP will not succeed the President while the latter is in office. But if one is worried about that, I suppose a few minutes of sound bites from a one term senator might convince a few worry warts that he
has sufficient experience to run world's sole super power.:-)
I know dozens of people who regularly travel to Singapore, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, South America and a host of other regions.
All of them are far more liberal then I am.
Since most of the people I know who travel
regularly are co-workers, and since most
of those co-workers are tech workers in
Bay Area, most of them are far more liberal
than I am. I suspect if I were in the banking
or defense industries, I'd find such world
travellers to be more conservative than I am.
However, a more interesting anecdote would be
of the Americans one meets on foreign travel,
do they tend to be more liberal than Americans
in the USA. My experience is that, if anything,
they are more conservative.
While there are degrees of anecdotes, anecdotes
are still rather useless. The claim was "survey
says". So identify the survey.
Conventional wisdom, which admittedly is often wrong, is that people who travel regularly,
tend to have more money than those who
do not. And it is a fact that the wealthier
tend to be Republican.
The *only* group that would be affected by this (besides the hackers, of course) would be the U.S. citizens outside the country for personal rather than national reasons. Survey says... mostly Democrat.
Why do you assume that civilian Americans outside
the USA are mostly Democrats?
Re:The debates could be very good for Kerry
on
Presidential Debates Set
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> Edwards will likely do well in the vice > presidential debate, regardless of how > Kerry does, just by virtue as coming > across as generally more likeable than Cheney.
I expect Cheney to eviscerate Edwards, a former litigator, on tort reform. Not that anyone really cares about the VP debates.
> politics.slashdot.org is rapidly turning
> into one of my least favorites because
> I've noticed that the moderation system
> is running amuck! [...] Here's an
example
> of where it happened to me recently.
Gee, you use the term "lying SBVT" and you
don't expect a negative rating. Remove "lying"
from your example post, and the signal to
noise ratio goes up quite a bit. slashdot
moderation is working.
This is a much much better idea than simply
having a nationwide popular vote for the
presidency, because this proposal, unlike
pure popular vote proposals, allocate two electoral votes
per state, thus giving small states some
leverage over larger states as the
framers of the constitution intended it.
But the timing and ordering is questionable.
The people behind this measure are from
larger solidly Democratic states like California
and New York. They certainly don't want this
plan their states. Imagine if California
and Colorado passed this measure immediately.
Then Colorado, being a toss up state, would
give 4 or 5 votes to Kerry, and 5 or 4 or
Bush. California, with 55 votes, even if 60% went
to Kerry, would leave a very sizeable number to
Bush, and he'd easily be re-elected.
Thus if this idea is applied to the smaller states
without the larger states first doing it, then
it will effectively dilute the power the
framers wanted the smaller
states to have.
Pity that the plan's wording doesn't state:
"to be implemented once all states with
more electoral votes have as well".
Let's say I buy shares in Toxic Poisons, Inc.
in 2004. I sell those shares in 2005.
In 2050, someone sues Toxic Poisons, Inc.
and its shareholders for cancer caused by
exposure to the company's products in 2004.
Which shareholders get sued? Those who were
shareholders in 2004? Or those who are
shareholders in 2005? If the former, then
what if I'm dead? Do my descendents inherit
my unlimited liability? And who is going to
keep records of all the shareholders during
companies history, and track their address
changes? Doesn't this require a national
identity card? Yeah, this is a real libertarian approach, ain't it?
If the latter, how
many people are going to be willing to buy
shares that have upwards of 46 years
of possible liability? There will be no market
to sell stocks to.
And what about the case of companies that sell
operating units to other companies, including
the buildings, equipments, and employees. Let's
say the operating unit does evil stuff, and
the sale is done without shareolder approval?
Are the shareholders of the buying company
liable for a decision they had no choice in?
A workable LP platform would be to
strengthen, not weaken, limited liability. Not only
should the shareholder's other investments
and assets be shielded from torts committed
by the company, but the invested capital should
similarly be shielded from the evil committed
by company CEOs and employees. As the Badnarik and
others have said, it is individuals that
do damage, not faceless corporations. It is
the CEOs and employees, and in some cases,
the board of directors who should be held
responsible. And employees should buy the liability
insurance (and be compensated accordingly to pay
the premiums). This way, employees and CEOs
who engage in high risk practices would be
uninsurable and so would not harm customers
or shareholders.
The prose from the moderator is beautifully crafted, informative, and without
the sarcasm and cynicism that might turn off
would be readers of other conservative blogs.
The blog is heavily linked from the other
conservative blogs.
And no, Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative
blogger.
> The whole idea that Nader screwed Gore [...]
> is bulls**t.
Right. Gore couldn't even win his home state. TN,
which with 11 votes, would have given him
276 votes in the Electoral College, a majority,
even without Florida. Gore couldn't win TN today,
and that's likely why he didn't bother to run
this time. Even with TN, since 2000 census
has reallocated electoral votes, Gore would have
a tough mountain to climb:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLE S/pe2000ev_chg.php
> Ok *IF* this is true, that half went to Gore > and half went to Bush, then there SHOULD have > conducted the election AGIAN, this time MAKING > SURE people fill out their ballots correctly.
How would they have made sure people would have filled out their ballots correctly? Inspect each ballot for hanging chads before it was stuffed in the ballot box? You do understand the concept of secret ballot right? What if a voter doesn't want the county to clerk to be SURE?
The several thousand who couldn't punch their chads likely in the bottom percentiles when it came to intelligence, manual dexterity, and willingness to stand up for their rights to replace their spoiled ballots with a good one. One gets the right to vote; what one does with it isn't the problem of the government. If you can't handle the pressure of voting in the precinct office on election day, then get a mail in ballot and vote in the privacy of your home, and have a friend or relative check that you did it right if you don't mind losing your right to a secret ballot.
Yes, I agree the electronic ballot thing is stupid, and I say that as one who is pulling for the GOP.
There are 24 permutations in the Set Standards tab. I just did all 24, and 12 give the election to Gore, and 12 give the election to Bush.
In the What IF TAB, there are 4 choices. 2 would give the election to Gore, and 2 Bush.
The ballot design tab claims that it voter intent were analyzed in the 4 ballots types that showed votes for two more candidates, that Gore would have added thousands more votes than Bush. But as far as I can tell that was never litigated in the recout suits, and the Times doesn't provide what if totals for that.
The problem is that protesters are interfering with the rights of other people to freely assemble. Witness the anti-globalists shutting down free trade conferences with violent tactics.
> Man, you totally miss the point. [...]
> The files provided by a NFS server have to be
> physically stored on some (real) filesystem,
> like ext3 or reiserfs.
On the flip side, it doesn't help when
clusted file system makers bill their
stuff as a substitute for NFS:
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq lost its right to sovereignty when it invaded Kuwait, and failed to comply with terms of the Gulf War I cease fire. Iraq was chased out of Kuwait by a U.N. sanctioned force, and signed a cease fire, not a peace treaty.
That cease fire agreement had terms and conditions which Iraq was not in compliance with. Kind of like how a paroled criminal, is forcibly if necessary, returned to prison if he violates the terms.
In the judgement of the world, the sovereignty of Kuwait was violated. If we value sovereignty, we have to enforce punishment for violations of sovereignty. Letting Iraq off the hook for its cease fire agreement, would weaken the concept of national sovereignty, and in the endanger the national sovereignty of the countries we live in.
And that is the sole legitimate argument necessary for invading Iraq. The ones about WMDs, brutal regime, terrorism, are superfluous.
(You did notice that Libya, a frequent violater of its neighbors' sovereignty, is now rehabilitating itself as a nation that respects sovereignty?)
BTW, wasn't Yugoslavia a sovereign nation?
Unlike Iraq, Yugoslavia did not invade it's neighbors.
And yet, the U.N. sent forces to Bosnia, along with the U.S., and NATO along with the U.S. (and without U.N. approval by the way) pounded Serbia with an air war.
I mention this, because I wonder if you were against the war on Yugoslavia. I was, and remain so, for the reasons you gave, plus that it gives other countries a pretext to violate our countries' sovereignty once we start doing something that is disagreeable.
Before the invasion, Chomsky claimed that the sanctions on Iraq had killed 1.5 M people. and so the sanctions must be ended.
So would you rather 10,000 died or 1.5M more died?
Of course, the 1.5M figure is probably B.S.. Even if is closer to 100,000, it is more than 10,000 (which is probably another B.S. figure, got a source, and a break down of how many were killed by "combatant rebels"?).
Why is this tired old argument modded 5?
> have few alternatives except to do the fighting
And by this logic, instituting a draft would
eliminate this alternative, since rich white
boy would slinging the M16 that poor, jobless,
uneducated dude wouldn't have.
> John Ashcroft received several deferments
> during Vietnam. One was a critical occupation
> deferment for teaching business law at a
> Missouri college.
And John Ashcroft's son is an ensign in the US Navy, and did a tour in the Gulf, and apparently
is going back.
> er. the law, which is what we're discussing
> here, only applies to people. can a horse be
> charged with murder?
At least one ethicsist, Peter Singer,
argues that chimpanzees of normal
intelligence ought to have more rights than
mentally retarded humans. Assuming you aren't
arguing that the retarded should be banned
from marrying other humans, it follows that
chimps and humans should be able to marry.
It would also be hard to argue why chimps and
horses couldn't marry. Therefore, by transitivity
livestock and humans should be able to marry.
That we aren't giving livestock rights or
require that they submit tax returns is
only because human society has arbitrarily
dictated that, just as it dictates that
a human in a vegatative state can have
wealth, must pay taxes, and in most states,
has the right to life.
As for charging animals with murder, we
routinely, and without due process for
wild animals, kill those who have killed
(or might kill) humans. We often have trials
to determine if killer domestic dogs should be
put to death. Many of us were appalled,
when this year, a cougar who hadn't done anything
but wander from the hills into residential
Palo Alto, was callously shot deadby the police.
Full due process for wild bears and cougars is
a matter of time. You lose the argument.
That takes are of bestiality. As for polygamy,
what if I want to marry a cojoinmed twin,
and vice versa. Isn't it ridiculous that
the other twin should remain single? There's
a much more practical argument for letting
me be married to a both conjoined twins,
since they are a single organism, despite what
the law says, then for letting gays marry.
So that takes care of that. Now the conjoined
twins take advantage of medical advances and
are separated. Is my marriage to both now void?
Of course not. But if I can be in a marriage
with two wives, who happen to be sisters, then
any sisters, conjoined or not should be able
to marry the same person. And once we've
extended that right to singlings, unrelated
people will argue for the same right.
Then what about bi-sexuals? Why should their
emotional needs be any less than those of
gays. They should be able to marry at least
one person of each gender.
Frankly, I don't care if people want to marry
their vibrators. But as another submitter said,
the costs of entering into these non-traditional
relationships should be born by the individuals,
and not society. At least, not until
socieity has a few thousand years to adjust to it.
Anyone who labels this as a false slippery slope
is betting that there are no judges that agree.
It is for certain that laws against polygamy,
polyandy, group marriage, bestiality, marriage
with underaged but mentally mature children,
etc. are all going to be overturned in the courts.
> Senator Kerry [...] Kyoto Protocols -
> which you have spoken in favor of [...]
You mean voted against as part of the 95-0
vote against it.
> Also, the much of the rest of the
:-)
> world still has laws about media
> fairness and impartiality
True, fairness and impartiality as defined
by organizations like the CRTC
(which routinely kicks "shock jocks" off the
air).
> By Canadian standards I'm part of
> the third largest political party
> in the country
You're a member of the Bloc Quebecois party?
> platform and issues matter
Let's be serious for moment. From the world's
perspective, the "nuanced" differences between
Bush and Kerry don't add up to all the rats
you can find in Alberta. Kerry will keep
soldiers in Iraq. Kerry will lean on North
Korea. Kerry won't implement Kyoto (he voted
against it in the 95-0 Senate vote). Kerry
isn't going let Canadian softwood lumber into
the US, nor is he going to role back U.S.
farm subsidies. Kerry is going to assert right
of free seas to the Northwest Passage. Kerry is
going to be pissed off at Chirac when he refuses
to help out in Iraq. Kerry if anything, is
going to pound the Taliban harder than Bush.
Kerry is going to lean on Canada for
more peace keeping soldiers. Kerry isn't
going to force Minnesota to stop its Manitoba
flooding water projects. Etc.
What exactly is different as far as relations
with Canada between Bush and Clinton, and why
do you think Kerry is going to put the rights
of Canadians ahead of American interests? So
Ottawa won't call Kerry a moron. The
guy wants to be president for 8 years, not 4.
I'm sure Kerry loves to be loved by foreigners,
as much as Bush doesn't care if he's loved by
them or not. So?
> However, Bush is much more reliant
... JFK
> on his aides
As compared to who? President Bartlett?
Bush, the guy who wants a gay marriage amendement
against the wishes of his VP who has a lesbian
daughter? What evidence supports your assertion?
> You criticize Edwards for inadequate
> international experience. Tell me, how
> does a one-term US Senator compare with
> a one-and-a-half-term Texas Governor
> in international experience?
Where did I criticize his international
experience. I pointed out his inexperience,
period. Just as you probably criticized
Dan Quayle's experience in '88.
I'm less concerned about 1-2 term governors
running the country than 1 term senators because:
1. governors are the chief exec of their state,
with economies larger than most countries.
Senators are the boss of maybe 10-20 people
on their staff. And a single term Senator
will never chair a major committee.
2. we have plenty of existence proofs of
governors doing an OK job of being president.
Whereas we've few (are there any
had 8 years in the senate for a total of
14 years in Congress) such proofs for
single term senators, especially ones who
have never held any other political office,
or run a corporation [I.e. John Corzinne
is much more qualified than Edwards].
Sorry.
In any case, Bush isn't just 1.5 term governor.
He is the sitting president. I notice that
you didn't question Cheney's qualifications to
be president. That would have been as
laughable as me questioning Kerry's
qualifications, which you'll notice I didn't
question. Clearly, of the 4 people running for
national office, Edwards is the light weight.
If I were considering voting for the Democratic
ticket, Edwards' inexperience wouldn't bug me
because the odds of him taking office due to
Kerry leaving office prematurely are close to
zero.
Asserting that this VP election is a big deal
when the asserter is likely an Edwards fan and
Cheney hater is a hoot. When Edwards runs
a war like Gulf War I, get back with me.
> This election everyone really, really should [care about the VP debate]
:-)
Why does an unqualified opinion get modded up?
The VP role has historically been a do nothing
job. People like to think that Cheney is the
power behind the throne, but it is more likely
that Karl Rove sets policy than Cheney.
The odds are very high the VP will not succeed
the President while the latter is in office.
But if one is worried about that, I suppose
a few minutes of sound bites from a one term
senator might convince a few worry warts that he
has sufficient experience to run world's sole
super power.
However, a more interesting anecdote would be of the Americans one meets on foreign travel, do they tend to be more liberal than Americans in the USA. My experience is that, if anything, they are more conservative.
While there are degrees of anecdotes, anecdotes are still rather useless. The claim was "survey says". So identify the survey.
Conventional wisdom, which admittedly is often wrong, is that people who travel regularly, tend to have more money than those who do not. And it is a fact that the wealthier tend to be Republican.
Why do you assume that civilian Americans outside the USA are mostly Democrats?
> Edwards will likely do well in the vice
> presidential debate, regardless of how
> Kerry does, just by virtue as coming
> across as generally more likeable than Cheney.
I expect Cheney to eviscerate Edwards, a
former litigator, on tort reform. Not that
anyone really cares about the VP debates.
> into one of my least favorites because
> I've noticed that the moderation system
> is running amuck! [...] Here's an example
> of where it happened to me recently.
Gee, you use the term "lying SBVT" and you don't expect a negative rating. Remove "lying" from your example post, and the signal to noise ratio goes up quite a bit. slashdot moderation is working.
But the timing and ordering is questionable.
The people behind this measure are from larger solidly Democratic states like California and New York. They certainly don't want this plan their states. Imagine if California and Colorado passed this measure immediately. Then Colorado, being a toss up state, would give 4 or 5 votes to Kerry, and 5 or 4 or Bush. California, with 55 votes, even if 60% went to Kerry, would leave a very sizeable number to Bush, and he'd easily be re-elected.
Thus if this idea is applied to the smaller states without the larger states first doing it, then it will effectively dilute the power the framers wanted the smaller states to have.
Pity that the plan's wording doesn't state: "to be implemented once all states with more electoral votes have as well".
Let's say I buy shares in Toxic Poisons, Inc. in 2004. I sell those shares in 2005. In 2050, someone sues Toxic Poisons, Inc. and its shareholders for cancer caused by exposure to the company's products in 2004. Which shareholders get sued? Those who were shareholders in 2004? Or those who are shareholders in 2005? If the former, then what if I'm dead? Do my descendents inherit my unlimited liability? And who is going to keep records of all the shareholders during companies history, and track their address changes? Doesn't this require a national identity card? Yeah, this is a real libertarian approach, ain't it?
If the latter, how many people are going to be willing to buy shares that have upwards of 46 years of possible liability? There will be no market to sell stocks to.
And what about the case of companies that sell operating units to other companies, including the buildings, equipments, and employees. Let's say the operating unit does evil stuff, and the sale is done without shareolder approval? Are the shareholders of the buying company liable for a decision they had no choice in?
A workable LP platform would be to strengthen, not weaken, limited liability. Not only should the shareholder's other investments and assets be shielded from torts committed by the company, but the invested capital should similarly be shielded from the evil committed by company CEOs and employees. As the Badnarik and others have said, it is individuals that do damage, not faceless corporations. It is the CEOs and employees, and in some cases, the board of directors who should be held responsible. And employees should buy the liability insurance (and be compensated accordingly to pay the premiums). This way, employees and CEOs who engage in high risk practices would be uninsurable and so would not harm customers or shareholders.
The prose from the moderator is beautifully crafted, informative, and without the sarcasm and cynicism that might turn off would be readers of other conservative blogs. The blog is heavily linked from the other conservative blogs.
And no, Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative blogger.
> is bulls**t.
Right. Gore couldn't even win his home state. TN, which with 11 votes, would have given him 276 votes in the Electoral College, a majority, even without Florida. Gore couldn't win TN today, and that's likely why he didn't bother to run this time. Even with TN, since 2000 census has reallocated electoral votes, Gore would have a tough mountain to climb: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLE S/pe2000ev_chg.php
> Ok *IF* this is true, that half went to Gore
> and half went to Bush, then there SHOULD have
> conducted the election AGIAN, this time MAKING
> SURE people fill out their ballots correctly.
How would they have made sure people would
have filled out their ballots correctly?
Inspect each ballot for hanging chads before it
was stuffed in the ballot box? You do
understand the concept of secret ballot right?
What if a voter doesn't want the county to
clerk to be SURE?
The several thousand who couldn't punch
their chads likely in the bottom percentiles
when it came to intelligence, manual dexterity,
and willingness to stand up for their rights to
replace their spoiled ballots with a good one.
One gets the right to vote; what one does with it
isn't the problem of the government. If you
can't handle the pressure of voting in the
precinct office on election day, then
get a mail in ballot and vote in the privacy
of your home, and have a friend or relative check
that you did it right if you don't mind losing
your right to a secret ballot.
Yes, I agree the electronic ballot thing is
stupid, and I say that as one who is pulling for
the GOP.
Well I think you are both wrong.
There are 24 permutations in the Set Standards tab. I just did all 24, and 12 give the election
to Gore, and 12 give the election to Bush.
In the What IF TAB, there are 4 choices. 2 would
give the election to Gore, and 2 Bush.
The ballot design tab claims that it voter intent
were analyzed in the 4 ballots types that showed
votes for two more candidates, that Gore would have added thousands more votes than Bush. But
as far as I can tell that was never litigated
in the recout suits, and the Times doesn't provide what if totals for that.
Which doesn't do a damn bit of good for
anyone who doesn't have cable, but might have
DSL, fiber optic, etc.
The problem is that protesters are interfering
with the rights of other people to freely
assemble. Witness the anti-globalists
shutting down free trade conferences with
violent tactics.
The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable search.
Witnesses reported a physical altercation between
Hiibel and his daughter, not just "arguing".
I thoughtgh the title of the story was:
BSA Asks Kids to Copyright the Name Weasel
> Do NFS hangs count?
Would you rather your apps got an error when
the connection broke, or would you rather
the NFS client kept trying?
> Hummingbird (aka NFS Maestro for Windows) are
> players in the NFSv4 working group
Maestro with NFSv4 support has been available
for two years.
> The files provided by a NFS server have to be
> physically stored on some (real) filesystem,
> like ext3 or reiserfs.
On the flip side, it doesn't help when clusted file system makers bill their stuff as a substitute for NFS:
http://www.redhat.com/software/rha/gfs/
Can serve as a scalable alternative to NFS.
Yeah sure, if all my systems run Red Hat GFS on RH systems. Isn't an outfit in Redmond proposing a similar strategy?