Everyone knows Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't developing WMDs. These documents which supposedly show how to build an atomic weapon must have been planted by the evil Bush administration.
If they were, they were planted by the *first* Bush administration. These documents are circa the first Gulf War.
Everyone knows Iraq was trying to get a nuclear bomb then. Whether or not they had/were seeking WMDs in the build-up to the current war with Iraq is still up to debate.
Because if it's required, and if it isn't issued for free, then Indiana has reinvented the poll tax.
Well, in fairness the state does offer free state-issued ID cards from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles if you don't have a license.
Of course, if you don't have a license, you probably don't have a car, making actually getting to the BMV more difficult. The public transportation system here sucks in the cities, and is non-existent out in the sticks, and the chances of being within walking distance to a BMV branch is pretty slim.
Additionally, if you don't have a car or a license, you probably have a crap job and can't afford to take much time off of work to get to the license branch.
Right before the election, and still without any ability to correlate a given machine to the district in which it would be actually used, and before the machine was loaded with the slate of candidates. Unless Diebold's also working on time travel technology - which I think they'd use a little more creatively than by mis-aligning displays on old, refurbished, and over-used displays - that's a total red herring.
Well, no.
They know who will be running in all districts, so it's rather simple to say:
if (candidate1 = "Freddy Snerdlick")
AllVotesGoTo(candidate1)
Think they'd engineer a vast conspiracy of election fraud and not think of that one?
You're right (and that's deliberate), but I think you overlooked the more simple point: Who is to blame if a campaign promise does not come through?
Like everything else in politics, it depends on who is louder and more effective in placing the blame: the side screaming about broken campaign promises, or the side screaming about the morons in the XYZ Party who voted for raising your taxes.
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with mayonnaise but with vinegar.
Are you sure you're still talking about America? We don't use mayonnaise on fries- we use ketchup.
Like most arguments you're employing a tactic that I see threaded throughout this whole objection, which is, that IF there's something wrong with X, because of Y, that there's nothing to fear because of Z.
Fair enough.. I actually realized I had done that after I hit submit.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who are against gay marriage would also like to outlaw divorce as damaging the sanctity of marriage, but that's not something that has broad appeal. Banning gay marriage is a more-reachable goal for them. I think a lot of it boils down to political support.
Another analogy (and hot-button issue) would be abortion- pro-lifers may work towards banning specific types of abortion (like partial-birth abortion) but that doesn't mean they approve of any other type of abortion any more, just that they take their victories where they can get them.
Anyway, I appreciate your response and your point is taken- I'll take it into consideration for creating future arguments:)
Divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage. If gay marriage is legalized there will also be gay divorce. So all things being equal, discussion of divorce rates is really a nonstarter, and really should not be part of the discussion. --Ray
I was merely pointing out that the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is a sham. The argument being that gay marriage is responsible for somehow destroying the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, but where does that leave divorce? What could be more destructive to the institution of marriage than divorce?
Of course, no one cares about outlawing divorce. Of course it is a nonstarter issue, because outlawing divorce doesn't do anything about keeping the homos in their place, which is really what this is about.
But can't you also get the information "widely known" by circulating a story about how easy it is without including the specific (or at least accurate) directions to commit this felony?
Think of it as a form of civil disobedience- commit a crime as a form of protest, and accept the punishment as a consequence.
Marriage is the very cornerstone of American civilization, and to allow same sex marriages would fundamentally damage the institution of marriage, and by extension fundamentally damage American civilization. By that reasoning, it must take priority over any external issue.
Again, I, personally, don't believe that to be a logical viewpoint, but there are others out there who do.
If people really wanted to defend marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.
Also, when people pull out the "damage the institution of marriage" I usually ask them how exactly the damage occurs, because honestly I don't see how gay people getting married affects the marriages of straight people.
Yes. Determined in 2002. How were they supposed to enforce a ban / labeling on a substance unknown to be dangerous until studies were concluded in 2002?
This is a perfect example for why we should study possible health effects of food additives before consuming mass quantities of them.
Knowing ol' Kimmy, he'd nuke your invading forces inside of his borders, even if they occupied an area populated by a bunch of his people. He'd turn around and say that being vaporized 'brought happiness to the people of North Korea, and the patrriotic people enjoyed having their flesh melt off of their bones'
China may not like North Korea much at the moment, but they have signed some fairly hefty military alliance pacts with North Korea in the past. I would suggest they are most likely to want to avoid any attention atm over North Korea and the facts of what they have promised should North Korea get 'bullied' by other countries.
Maybe so, but I think it would be the same situation as any other time a country is called upon to follow a treaty it signed- determine whether or not following the terms of the agreement would be in the best interests of the country.
In this case, it wouldn't surprise me at all if China didn't honor its end of the military alliance pacts with North Korea, and I don't think the rest of the world would be too upset about their failure to defend NK.
A typo is an accidental mistype you fail to spot before publication. Not a deliberate lie you deliberately allow to be published.
Also- a typo could have been any letter. It didn't say T-Florida or E-Florida, which would have been meaningless in this context- it said D-Florida, which has a well defined meaning in politics.
I can't remember whether it was in Montreal, Paris, or Mexico, but I've seen The Daily Show come on right after a "real" news show on CNN International. And I didn't see any disclaimer about it being satire, either. Folks elsewhere must have a really interesting perception of what's going on in the U.S.;)
Some people might even be smart enough to figure it out on their own;)
I'd say you're projecting. If you think that opposition to Bush stems only from dems or liberals, then I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. There are plenty of right wingers, including almost every conservative who isn't either a religious loony or a neo-con, who dislike Bush for reasons ranging from the deficit (fiscal conservative my ass) to civil liberties (remeber when "rights" were a conservative ideal? It was what seperated us from the USSR for crying out loud!)
Stewart sounds like a cynical libertarian to me, not a liberal. He'll readily decry the democrats when they go against his own idea of right and wrong, or when they act spineless, or when they suck up to the neo-cons. He'd fit right in on/., which may explain his popularity here.
The first paragraph you point out the conservatives who don't like Bush, but the second paragraph you make it seem like if Stewart doesn't like the Democrats, he must not be a liberal.
Most liberals I know are disappointed by the current batch of Democrat politicians, and are perfectly willing to vocalize their displeasure with the spinelessness and neo-con sucking-up. That doesn't necessarily make them Libertarians. Most of them will hold their nose and vote for the Democrat anyway, since the alternative is probably worse.
BTW: Ever wonder what the people with ideas think? Believe it or not, some people are actually for things. They look forward to a better future instead or dreading the inevitable end of the world. Try to imagine what that's like some time. You could actually be for something instead of against everything.
That's cute. Gimme a lobotomy and some of your Kool-Aid, and I'll lock-step right behind you.
Well, they can start by offering solutions that aren't either "run away" or just standing around bitching and not offering any other solutions. If they have been offering solutions, they sure don't have the answer.
They have been offering solutions, but they currently don't really have much influence in policy-making at this time, since the Republicans control all three branches of government and aren't terribly interested in listening to what the Democrats have to say.
I keep hearing this line about 'all the Democrats do is bitch and not offer solutions' but the solutions being offered are ignored.
Besides, even if they weren't offering any solutions, I'd say that no solution is better than doing the complete wrong thing at all times and making things worse. At least with no solution, things stay the same- crappy, but the same.
A "what to buy" article like this has a significant effect on sales and advertisers perceptions - which is why almost every card won "in its category", to avoid pissing anyone off.
Then what they should do is put each card on its own page, talk about how that particular video card is the best one ever, and fill the rest of the space with ads for that card and links to purchase one. Then they can throw out all pretenses of reviewing the hardware and objectivity.
Here's the quote the blurb is based on, from the Air Force Secretary: "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation."
Despite slashdot-hallucinations to the contrary, he isn't claiming that the Air Force is going to paratroop into the middle of a cub scout meeting and start firing less-than-lethal lasers at everybody in order to see if it works or not. What he's saying is that he's refusing to use it on Iraqi civilians until they're considered safe enough that they've been used in similar situations in the US.
It was still a clumsy way of saying that. There are a lot of weapons that we're willing to use in a wartime situation that are not used against US citizens. In a wartime situation, they don't seem to mind quite as much if the people on the receiving end of the weapon die as a result of its use. Once the police/military starts killing American citizens, well... people tend to get upset about that.
This is slightly worse than wiretapping w/o a warrant on the constitutional level. There's a name for a law that declares someone guilty of some offense and then punishes them for it without a trial - it's called a bill of attainder, and it's specifically prohibited.
In Indiana they can put you on An-Abuse if you're accused (and not yet convicted) of DUI. It's the same sort of thing- being punished for something you're not yet convicted for.
Don't be daft, you won't be arrested. Large office parks and multi-story buildings do exactly that all the time. The only reason you can't build your own competing phone system is that the first time you need to string a wire across or under a street, you're fucked.
For someone who lives in an apartment, maybe this is something that is feasable. I should look into this more and talk to my neighbors and landlord.
I'm sure we'd all save a lot of money if we split the internet, cable, and telephone bills.
If you can't get laid at a bar, you don't go down to the corner, pick up a hooker, and rape her. That's now how things work.
No, you go home and jack off. Then to continue the analogy, the hooker will then sue you for infringing on her livelyhood. After all, you're getting for free what you should be paying her for.
No, I'm not rich. But I live in an expensive county with a reasonably well-off cross section of humanity - and I see the same kids in the local Starbucks every damn day, sucking down Spend-a-ccinos.
Maybe those are the kids who are actually buying CDs. Maybe it's the broke kids who can't even afford the 50 cent coffee at the 7-11 that are copying the CDs illegally.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knows Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't developing WMDs. These documents which supposedly show how to build an atomic weapon must have been planted by the evil Bush administration.
If they were, they were planted by the *first* Bush administration.
These documents are circa the first Gulf War.
Everyone knows Iraq was trying to get a nuclear bomb then. Whether or not they had/were seeking WMDs in the build-up to the current war with Iraq is still up to debate.
Because if it's required, and if it isn't issued for free, then Indiana has reinvented the poll tax.
Well, in fairness the state does offer free state-issued ID cards from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles if you don't have a license.
Of course, if you don't have a license, you probably don't have a car, making actually getting to the BMV more difficult. The public transportation system here sucks in the cities, and is non-existent out in the sticks, and the chances of being within walking distance to a BMV branch is pretty slim.
Additionally, if you don't have a car or a license, you probably have a crap job and can't afford to take much time off of work to get to the license branch.
So yeah... poll tax.
Right before the election, and still without any ability to correlate a given machine to the district in which it would be actually used, and before the machine was loaded with the slate of candidates. Unless Diebold's also working on time travel technology - which I think they'd use a little more creatively than by mis-aligning displays on old, refurbished, and over-used displays - that's a total red herring.
Well, no.
They know who will be running in all districts, so it's rather simple to say:
if (candidate1 = "Freddy Snerdlick")
AllVotesGoTo(candidate1)
Think they'd engineer a vast conspiracy of election fraud and not think of that one?
If Sarah-Jessica Parker starts running for office, I'm going to leave the country
Like she'd be any worse than the people who actually are running for office?
Any of them are enough to make me want to leave the country.
You're right (and that's deliberate), but I think you overlooked the more simple point: Who is to blame if a campaign promise does not come through?
Like everything else in politics, it depends on who is louder and more effective in placing the blame:
the side screaming about broken campaign promises, or the side screaming about the morons in the XYZ Party who voted for raising your taxes.
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with mayonnaise but with vinegar.
Are you sure you're still talking about America? We don't use mayonnaise on fries- we use ketchup.
Like most arguments you're employing a tactic that I see threaded throughout this whole objection, which is, that IF there's something wrong with X, because of Y, that there's nothing to fear because of Z.
:)
Fair enough.. I actually realized I had done that after I hit submit.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who are against gay marriage would also like to outlaw divorce as damaging the sanctity of marriage, but that's not something that has broad appeal. Banning gay marriage is a more-reachable goal for them. I think a lot of it boils down to political support.
Another analogy (and hot-button issue) would be abortion- pro-lifers may work towards banning specific types of abortion (like partial-birth abortion) but that doesn't mean they approve of any other type of abortion any more, just that they take their victories where they can get them.
Anyway, I appreciate your response and your point is taken- I'll take it into consideration for creating future arguments
Divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage. If gay marriage is legalized there will also be gay divorce. So all things being equal, discussion of divorce rates is really a nonstarter, and really should not be part of the discussion. --Ray
I was merely pointing out that the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is a sham.
The argument being that gay marriage is responsible for somehow destroying the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, but where does that leave divorce? What could be more destructive to the institution of marriage than divorce?
Of course, no one cares about outlawing divorce. Of course it is a nonstarter issue, because outlawing divorce doesn't do anything about keeping the homos in their place, which is really what this is about.
But can't you also get the information "widely known" by circulating a story about how easy it is without including the specific (or at least accurate) directions to commit this felony?
Think of it as a form of civil disobedience- commit a crime as a form of protest, and accept the punishment as a consequence.
Marriage is the very cornerstone of American civilization, and to allow same sex marriages would fundamentally damage the institution of marriage, and by extension fundamentally damage American civilization. By that reasoning, it must take priority over any external issue.
Again, I, personally, don't believe that to be a logical viewpoint, but there are others out there who do.
If people really wanted to defend marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.
Also, when people pull out the "damage the institution of marriage" I usually ask them
how exactly the damage occurs, because honestly I don't see how gay people getting
married affects the marriages of straight people.
Yes. Determined in 2002. How were they supposed to enforce a ban / labeling on a substance unknown to be dangerous until studies were concluded in 2002?
This is a perfect example for why we should study possible health effects of food additives before consuming mass quantities of them.
Knowing ol' Kimmy, he'd nuke your invading forces inside of his borders, even if they occupied an area populated by a bunch of his people. He'd turn around and say that being vaporized 'brought happiness to the people of North Korea, and the patrriotic people enjoyed having their flesh melt off of their bones'
Beats living in North Korea, I guess.
China may not like North Korea much at the moment, but they have signed some fairly hefty military alliance pacts with North Korea in the past. I would suggest they are most likely to want to avoid any attention atm over North Korea and the facts of what they have promised should North Korea get 'bullied' by other countries.
Maybe so, but I think it would be the same situation as any other time a country is called upon to follow a treaty it signed- determine whether or not following the terms of the agreement would be in the best interests of the country.
In this case, it wouldn't surprise me at all if China didn't honor its end of the military alliance pacts with North Korea, and I don't think the rest of the world would be too upset about their failure to defend NK.
So really, anything could happen.
A typo is an accidental mistype you fail to spot before publication. Not a deliberate lie you deliberately allow to be published.
Also- a typo could have been any letter. It didn't say T-Florida or E-Florida, which would have been meaningless in this context- it said D-Florida, which has a well defined meaning in politics.
I can't remember whether it was in Montreal, Paris, or Mexico, but I've seen The Daily Show come on right after a "real" news show on CNN International. And I didn't see any disclaimer about it being satire, either. Folks elsewhere must have a really interesting perception of what's going on in the U.S. ;)
;)
Some people might even be smart enough to figure it out on their own
I'd say you're projecting. If you think that opposition to Bush stems only from dems or liberals, then I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. There are plenty of right wingers, including almost every conservative who isn't either a religious loony or a neo-con, who dislike Bush for reasons ranging from the deficit (fiscal conservative my ass) to civil liberties (remeber when "rights" were a conservative ideal? It was what seperated us from the USSR for crying out loud!)
/., which may explain his popularity here.
Stewart sounds like a cynical libertarian to me, not a liberal. He'll readily decry the democrats when they go against his own idea of right and wrong, or when they act spineless, or when they suck up to the neo-cons. He'd fit right in on
The first paragraph you point out the conservatives who don't like Bush, but the second paragraph you make it seem like if Stewart doesn't like the Democrats, he must not be a liberal.
Most liberals I know are disappointed by the current batch of Democrat politicians, and are perfectly willing to vocalize their displeasure with the spinelessness and neo-con sucking-up. That doesn't necessarily make them Libertarians. Most of them will hold their nose and vote for the Democrat anyway, since the alternative is probably worse.
Hooray for American politics!
BTW: Ever wonder what the people with ideas think? Believe it or not, some people are actually for things. They look forward to a better future instead or dreading the inevitable end of the world. Try to imagine what that's like some time. You could actually be for something instead of against everything.
That's cute.
Gimme a lobotomy and some of your Kool-Aid, and I'll lock-step right behind you.
Well, they can start by offering solutions that aren't either "run away" or just standing around bitching and not offering any other solutions. If they have been offering solutions, they sure don't have the answer.
They have been offering solutions, but they currently don't really have much influence in policy-making at this time, since the Republicans control all three branches of government and aren't terribly interested in listening to what the Democrats have to say.
I keep hearing this line about 'all the Democrats do is bitch and not offer solutions' but the solutions being offered are ignored.
Besides, even if they weren't offering any solutions, I'd say that no solution is better than doing the complete wrong thing at all times and making things worse. At least with no solution, things stay the same- crappy, but the same.
A "what to buy" article like this has a significant effect on sales and advertisers perceptions - which is why almost every card won "in its category", to avoid pissing anyone off.
Then what they should do is put each card on its own page, talk about how that particular video card is the best one ever, and fill the rest of the space with ads for that card and links to purchase one. Then they can throw out all pretenses of reviewing the hardware and objectivity.
Here's the quote the blurb is based on, from the Air Force Secretary: "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation."
Despite slashdot-hallucinations to the contrary, he isn't claiming that the Air Force is going to paratroop into the middle of a cub scout meeting and start firing less-than-lethal lasers at everybody in order to see if it works or not. What he's saying is that he's refusing to use it on Iraqi civilians until they're considered safe enough that they've been used in similar situations in the US.
It was still a clumsy way of saying that. There are a lot of weapons that we're willing to use in a wartime situation that are not used against US citizens. In a wartime situation, they don't seem to mind quite as much if the people on the receiving end of the weapon die as a result of its use. Once the police/military starts killing American citizens, well... people tend to get upset about that.
This is slightly worse than wiretapping w/o a warrant on the constitutional level. There's a name for a law that declares someone guilty of some offense and then punishes them for it without a trial - it's called a bill of attainder, and it's specifically prohibited.
In Indiana they can put you on An-Abuse if you're accused (and not yet convicted) of DUI.
It's the same sort of thing- being punished for something you're not yet convicted for.
Don't be daft, you won't be arrested. Large office parks and multi-story buildings do exactly that all the time. The only reason you can't build your own competing phone system is that the first time you need to string a wire across or under a street, you're fucked.
For someone who lives in an apartment, maybe this is something that is feasable.
I should look into this more and talk to my neighbors and landlord.
I'm sure we'd all save a lot of money if we split the internet, cable, and telephone bills.
This was probably invented by the same kid who reminds the teacher that she forgot to assign homework.
If you can't get laid at a bar, you don't go down to the corner, pick up a hooker, and rape her. That's now how things work.
No, you go home and jack off.
Then to continue the analogy, the hooker will then sue you for infringing on her livelyhood.
After all, you're getting for free what you should be paying her for.
No, I'm not rich. But I live in an expensive county with a reasonably well-off cross section of humanity - and I see the same kids in the local Starbucks every damn day, sucking down Spend-a-ccinos.
Maybe those are the kids who are actually buying CDs.
Maybe it's the broke kids who can't even afford the 50 cent coffee at the 7-11 that are copying the CDs illegally.