No. He will be punished far beyond what is reasonable. He'll be put on a sex offender website and hounded for the rest of his life, even though he is only two weeks older than she is.
If a female teacher is caught with a 17.999 year old boy, they'll probably both make a career out of appearances on daytime talk shows.
I think the funny part of this summary is the claim that the federal government doesn't have the power to do something so stupid. Could we please take some more power from them?
You obviously have not read "Atlas Shrugged", or tried to understand the regulatory environment created around the banking system. There was plenty of regulation, and the book cited did a pretty good job of explaining how it broke. Alan Greenspan claims to be a true believer of the book, but that makes him either an idiot, liar, or thief.
Let me explain myself. In "Atlas Shrugged", the government played a role in the downfall of the country, but that role was mostly as a pawn for the true villains of the book, greedy corporatists that used the power of government to spawn their own short term profits. The corporatist would gladly sacrifice their own companies long term viability for a quick return. What did we see in the banking industry? Rating companies taking payoffs to give bogus ratings to high risk vehicles. Mortgage brokers falsifying documents to get a quick payoff. And basically, everybody pissing in the public well.
So, back of the "it was deregulation" rhetoric. There was plenty of regulation. It was just mostly bad regulation.
Cherry picking, indeed. How long had we been supplying war planes to China? How long had we been supplying arms to Britain?
When you see a fight on the playground and you stick your nose in it as anything but a neutral party, you can't cry foul when you get punched in the nose. We kicked ASS in WWII, but I won't for one second swallow the idiotic revisionist bullshit that we were sitting idly by, minding our own business, when we were preemptively attacked without provocation.
You obviously have not ever had to live as a sustenance farmer. Neither have I, but my father did. Do you think food is the ONLY thing they have to work hard for? What do they do for shelter? clothing? heat? All that can be accomplished in only a few weeks out of the year, and the rest of the time they get to roam around like they're in some Disney movie? If you had a clue, would you recognize it?
They work hard to buy a TV, you say. But why would they work to buy the TV, unless they were going to have time to watch it?
No, ultranova is right. Those in control do the exploiting. We, the powerless, don't exploit anybody and most of us are exploited ourselves, just not as badly as the poor sods in the overseas sweatshops. Just because I buy a product from an exploititive company, particularly when that's the only option, doesn't make me an exploiter.
Stop making excuses for evil people.
Stop making excuses for yourself. The whole "I am powerless" mantra is simply pathetic. Isn't it nice how your powerlessness releases you from any responsibility?
If the poor wankers in the third world countries can't stand to work in the sweatshops, let them return to working at scratching out a living with subsistence farming. For those that choose to stay, I will buy the cheap products that produce as of means of supporting THEIR choice.
You do not accept conditional surrenders from someone who has repeatedly attacked you without provocation.
Read the actual histories, not revisionist crap with cherry picked quotes, to get the actual information.
I should probably consider myself to be somewhat hawkish. I'm a strong military supporter, and believe that the best defense the the ability and willingness to use a strong offense....but...this is bullshit.
The US was not sitting idly by 1940 when Germany and Japan just wantonly jumped up and attacked us. This country was running a friggin' oil embargo around Japan, supplying troops and air support to China, and running arms to Britain. When you're reading that history, how about reading the whole thing, and not just the "we were forced into being the savior of the world" propaganda foisted by "the greatest generation".
I guess it's like patenting a shovel, if anybody digs a hole can the patent holder prohibit you from having a swimming pool?
Only if the swimming pool requires a shovel to build. You'll still be allowed to have a plastic kiddy pool, or you can dig the hole for the swimming pool with a stick. If you use a shovel, though, you have to pay the shovel man.
If we said he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work.
Considering the controversy over the likes of Roman Polansky, et al, anything on MTV or VH1, professional sports, or anything in the stack of tabloids at the grocery store, I would have to say that as a society we long ago gave up looking at the "humanity" of "great" people.
Maybe those willing to accept some personal injury as a consequence of keeping their pride and independance are viewed as being mature. Part of maturity is accepting that shit happens, but you have to soldier on anyhow. Immature adults, ie spineless dweebs, are always searching for someone else to accept the pain on their behalf.
This goes far beyond standing up to bullies. Accepting the pain of a workout in order to finish a marathon. Working long hours to get a promotion. Laboring in the hot sun to create a beautiful garden. Immature people want someone else to make the pain go away. Mature one will go through the pain to achieve a goal.
(Yes, idiots will go through the pain to say they went through the pain. But that is a different post 8*)
I find it hard to believe that any state would be so small that book manufacturers wouldn't cater to them. The whole argument seem to be a bit facetious.
Are you making a claim that telephone surveys give meaningful results when the surveyors try to shoehorn respondents to accept answers that are on their multiple choice questionaire?
In market in which any one player can have undue influence on the market is no longer a free market. Therefore, you are technically correct: free markets cannot produce monopolies, because they cease being free long before any monopoly is created.
I didn't say that the free market cannot create monopolies but that that is a mostly theoretical problem since it does not tend to happen in practice. If you think it does please name some monopolies that have formed without direct role of the government in creating them (such as with utility companies). The scenario that people have in mind is a company getting so big and powerful that it drives all its competitors out of business and then does whatever it wants has never happened in reality.
Manufacture a long sheet by dispersing the hair between two rolls of cotton fabric. You start with two rolls. Hair is dropped on the bottom one, and another sheet is rolled out on top. The sandwich goes through a bank of sewing machines and is rolled up onto another roll. The resulting composite sandwich could easily be several miles long.
That's the construction. To use it:
You have a tanker and several smaller boats. Several rolls of the composite material are mounted on the deck of the tanker. The smaller boat pulls the composite off the roll, through an unengaged wringer and out through the spill. Once the sheet is stretched out, the tanker cranks it back in with the wringer engaged, with the oil squeezed into tanks.
The smaller boats then pull the sheet right back out. The process could also be modified to put a bunch of "wringer boats" that travelled the length of the sheet, picking it up and dropping it right back in after it has been wrung out.
You ignore the point that sheople can actually be coerced by a minor voice that happens to be right. If the liberal didn't so often ignore reality, they might get more people to listen to them.
I'm very conservative, but I can't stand to listen to Glen Beck. The guy is an idiot, in MY opinion. I tried to listen to Rachel Maddow. She takes idiocy to a new level, in MY opinion. Forcing either one to have more airtime is an even worse way to govern.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha!! You were going for funny mods weren't you?
"The Democrats will save us! The Democrats will save us!"
Really?! You don't think the Dems promote the same damn thing?
No. He will be punished far beyond what is reasonable. He'll be put on a sex offender website and hounded for the rest of his life, even though he is only two weeks older than she is.
If a female teacher is caught with a 17.999 year old boy, they'll probably both make a career out of appearances on daytime talk shows.
Damn, I love this country.
I think the funny part of this summary is the claim that the federal government doesn't have the power to do something so stupid. Could we please take some more power from them?
What the hell are you talking about? That is EXACTLY like Rand's statist government. Where did the "Anti Dog Eat Dog" law originate?
You obviously have not read "Atlas Shrugged", or tried to understand the regulatory environment created around the banking system. There was plenty of regulation, and the book cited did a pretty good job of explaining how it broke. Alan Greenspan claims to be a true believer of the book, but that makes him either an idiot, liar, or thief.
Let me explain myself. In "Atlas Shrugged", the government played a role in the downfall of the country, but that role was mostly as a pawn for the true villains of the book, greedy corporatists that used the power of government to spawn their own short term profits. The corporatist would gladly sacrifice their own companies long term viability for a quick return. What did we see in the banking industry? Rating companies taking payoffs to give bogus ratings to high risk vehicles. Mortgage brokers falsifying documents to get a quick payoff. And basically, everybody pissing in the public well.
So, back of the "it was deregulation" rhetoric. There was plenty of regulation. It was just mostly bad regulation.
But the competitors would NOT have bought the unions along with the strategic assets. That is the untold story.
Fair? So, one child grew up without enough to eat. He's skinny. Fair or not, he's skinny.
One child grew up without parental support. He's immature. Fair or not, he's immature.
Are you saying we should call the skinny kid fat, because he grew up in a poor country?
Cherry picking, indeed. How long had we been supplying war planes to China? How long had we been supplying arms to Britain?
When you see a fight on the playground and you stick your nose in it as anything but a neutral party, you can't cry foul when you get punched in the nose. We kicked ASS in WWII, but I won't for one second swallow the idiotic revisionist bullshit that we were sitting idly by, minding our own business, when we were preemptively attacked without provocation.
You obviously have not ever had to live as a sustenance farmer. Neither have I, but my father did. Do you think food is the ONLY thing they have to work hard for? What do they do for shelter? clothing? heat? All that can be accomplished in only a few weeks out of the year, and the rest of the time they get to roam around like they're in some Disney movie? If you had a clue, would you recognize it?
They work hard to buy a TV, you say. But why would they work to buy the TV, unless they were going to have time to watch it?
No, ultranova is right. Those in control do the exploiting. We, the powerless, don't exploit anybody and most of us are exploited ourselves, just not as badly as the poor sods in the overseas sweatshops. Just because I buy a product from an exploititive company, particularly when that's the only option, doesn't make me an exploiter.
Stop making excuses for evil people.
Stop making excuses for yourself. The whole "I am powerless" mantra is simply pathetic. Isn't it nice how your powerlessness releases you from any responsibility?
If the poor wankers in the third world countries can't stand to work in the sweatshops, let them return to working at scratching out a living with subsistence farming. For those that choose to stay, I will buy the cheap products that produce as of means of supporting THEIR choice.
You do not accept conditional surrenders from someone who has repeatedly attacked you without provocation.
Read the actual histories, not revisionist crap with cherry picked quotes, to get the actual information.
I should probably consider myself to be somewhat hawkish. I'm a strong military supporter, and believe that the best defense the the ability and willingness to use a strong offense....but...this is bullshit.
The US was not sitting idly by 1940 when Germany and Japan just wantonly jumped up and attacked us. This country was running a friggin' oil embargo around Japan, supplying troops and air support to China, and running arms to Britain. When you're reading that history, how about reading the whole thing, and not just the "we were forced into being the savior of the world" propaganda foisted by "the greatest generation".
I guess it's like patenting a shovel, if anybody digs
a hole can the patent holder prohibit you from having a swimming pool?
Only if the swimming pool requires a shovel to build. You'll still be allowed to have a plastic kiddy pool, or you can dig the hole for the swimming pool with a stick. If you use a shovel, though, you have to pay the shovel man.
If we said he was a "great writer," that's fine. But calling him a great man because of his writing is not merited, unless as a society, we actually want to ignore "humanity" faults in a person because of his literary work.
Considering the controversy over the likes of Roman Polansky, et al, anything on MTV or VH1, professional sports, or anything in the stack of tabloids at the grocery store, I would have to say that as a society we long ago gave up looking at the "humanity" of "great" people.
Maybe those willing to accept some personal injury as a consequence of keeping their pride and independance are viewed as being mature. Part of maturity is accepting that shit happens, but you have to soldier on anyhow. Immature adults, ie spineless dweebs, are always searching for someone else to accept the pain on their behalf.
This goes far beyond standing up to bullies. Accepting the pain of a workout in order to finish a marathon. Working long hours to get a promotion. Laboring in the hot sun to create a beautiful garden. Immature people want someone else to make the pain go away. Mature one will go through the pain to achieve a goal.
(Yes, idiots will go through the pain to say they went through the pain. But that is a different post 8*)
I find it hard to believe that any state would be so small that book manufacturers wouldn't cater to them. The whole argument seem to be a bit facetious.
Except...both sides are doing this...
Are you making a claim that telephone surveys give meaningful results when the surveyors try to shoehorn respondents to accept answers that are on their multiple choice questionaire?
It does however cover "people who want to see what these telephone poles are about".
The lady asks me "Are you more likely to vote Democrat or Republican?".
I say, "Neither. I'm Libertarian."
"You must choose either Democrat or Republican."
"But I wouldn't vote for either of those yahoos. Your survey is flawed."
And so it went for half an hour. It was fun.
Turn your sarcasm detector up one notch, or use SarcasmDetector v3.02.
In market in which any one player can have undue influence on the market is no longer a free market. Therefore, you are technically correct: free markets cannot produce monopolies, because they cease being free long before any monopoly is created.
I didn't say that the free market cannot create monopolies but that that is a mostly theoretical problem since it does not tend to happen in practice. If you think it does please name some monopolies that have formed without direct role of the government in creating them (such as with utility companies). The scenario that people have in mind is a company getting so big and powerful that it drives all its competitors out of business and then does whatever it wants has never happened in reality.
Wait for it.......Microsoft.
Wait. You're claiming that skin-tight lycra doesn't already maxing out the dorky scale?
Manufacture a long sheet by dispersing the hair between two rolls of cotton fabric. You start with two rolls. Hair is dropped on the bottom one, and another sheet is rolled out on top. The sandwich goes through a bank of sewing machines and is rolled up onto another roll. The resulting composite sandwich could easily be several miles long.
That's the construction. To use it:
You have a tanker and several smaller boats. Several rolls of the composite material are mounted on the deck of the tanker. The smaller boat pulls the composite off the roll, through an unengaged wringer and out through the spill. Once the sheet is stretched out, the tanker cranks it back in with the wringer engaged, with the oil squeezed into tanks.
The smaller boats then pull the sheet right back out. The process could also be modified to put a bunch of "wringer boats" that travelled the length of the sheet, picking it up and dropping it right back in after it has been wrung out.
Because Obama took 12 days to respond to this. But he didn't care, because the it mostly affect white shrimp fisherman.
Obama hates white people!
(Yes, I know I'm trolling. But I've been waiting over a year to throw that stupid line back at the racist lefties.)
Well, Canada is perfecting the process of refining oil sands 8*(
You ignore the point that sheople can actually be coerced by a minor voice that happens to be right. If the liberal didn't so often ignore reality, they might get more people to listen to them.
I'm very conservative, but I can't stand to listen to Glen Beck. The guy is an idiot, in MY opinion. I tried to listen to Rachel Maddow. She takes idiocy to a new level, in MY opinion. Forcing either one to have more airtime is an even worse way to govern.