Weren't White House e-mails reconstructed from erased tapes in the Paula Jones lawsuit? It doesn't seem like it. The only reference I can find to such a thing is from nutcasecentral, err worldnetdaily.
Even if it were true, which isn't likely, the absolute contempt this administration has for oversight compared to the Clinton administration would makes the circumstances incomparable.
That may be true, but more precisely, but many more winners in recent history failed to receive a majority of the popular vote (Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, etc.). The popular vote is utterly meaningless. That the winning candidates do not always have over 50% of the votes only proves that first across the post voting is as broken as the electoral votes system when more than two candidates are running (i.e. most of the time).
It is possible that in a future election a third party candidate could win enough electoral votes such that the President would be elected without a majority of the electoral votes. By your reasoning, wouldn't make the electoral votes just as meaningless as the popular vote?
In other words, you feel that it should keep being tweaked until the electoral vote is identical to the popular vote. Since that goes diametrically against the whole point, it'll never happen. And what exactly is the point? And if there is a good reason for it, why is the electoral system not used for other elections other than the Presidency of the United States?
Improving the system takes more than creating a meaningless tally and complaining that it has no meaning. Calling the total number of people who want a candidate to be President "a meaningless tally" is, what's the word... oh yeah. Retarded.
Do you think we should get rid of the "meaningless tally" that each state uses in the general election to choose its electors votes as well? It's not in the Constitution, so why should we bother, right? How about we just flip coins or better yet sell the votes to the highest bidder.
Our voting system is severely broken. That you seem to be aware of many of its defects in your original post and yet still fully supportive of it baffles me.
I for one think he had to overcome far more *not having legs* in order to run and any advantage he has because of these legs is offset by that. I disagree, The Olympics are all about the competition, they aren't about who had to overcome the most obstacles to get there. The other competitors have also worked very hard to get where they are and it would not be fair to any of them to admit someone with artificial legs designed for superior running speeds.
No ones is saying he's cheating, just that he isn't qualified to complete in the Olympics. There is nothing wrong with that, most people aren't qualified.
Back in the late 90's using only Applescript and the Apple built in speech recognition I was able to voice automate my music library. I don't remember all the details, but I could start and stop the music and select what artist I wanted to hear. It was pretty neat being able to say "Computer, play Nirvana" and getting my music all from the comfort of my bed.
You bring up a good point, but who could we bomb to solve this problem? Anyone and everyone! Bomb them all with hydrogen bombs and then we just need to collect the helium that results from the fusion.
Aphorisms are meaningless. Being unreasonable is not necessary or sufficient for making progress. Most of the time it results in wasted time and effort while those more open to reality have gone on to more useful endeavors.
Catholic's consider Peter to have been the first pope, do they not? That would mean the Catholic faith existed before Paul. Regardless of if you consider Peter or Paul to be the start of Catholicism most of the books of the Bible had been written before Catholicism, but could you really call them the Bible?
For the first several hundred years before the New Testament Canon was established the New Testament books were distributed and read by followers along with countless other books that were not accepted into the canon. Since their was at the time no accepted set of books for the churches to refer to anything that you would call a bible at the time would at the very least be very different from our current Bible and would certainly contain writings that are no longer considered Christian.
I wouldn't really say my use of dogmatic was ironic, I intended it in the religious sense in that questioning of the trinity is heresy in many (probably most) Christian churches.
Can we ban commercial air conditioning first? It's warm out, I don't want to have to dig out a sweater and wool cap when I want to go to a restaurant or movie theater.
Now that I think about it, he also brokered a peace agreement with Israel and Egypt that has never been broken, not once in more than 30 years. See, that's where he lost the Republicans. Why would you encourage peace between two countries that purchase arms from you? That just doesn't make sense.
I can't imagine they would. I trust the power companies wants to sell you as much electricity as they possibly can and would only throttle it when they have to.
Maybe empirical wasn't the right word to be used, I am talking about the parts of science that can be actively observed, measured, and calculated. So you're saying they should be teaching evolution now?
Parts of it are such as time dilation and the bending of light by gravity, just as parts of the theory of evolution are fact, such as the fact that things evolve.
The Tao in Taoism just refers to the universe and its laws. It's been awhile since I've studied up on Taosim, but I don't recall it necessarily having any mystical traits.
As for Buddhism, you may be confusing the Hindu concept of Karma and Dharma with the Buddhist concepts. They are different. My understanding of Buddhist Dharma is that it is just the collected teachings of the Buddha. Now it's true that many Buddhists see the Dharma as sacred, but many do not (e.g. the "kill the Buddha" teaching) and certainly the Buddha didn't teach that it was sacred as far as I've seen.
Karma in Buddhism is the law of cause and effect. The idea of Karma is to remind us that things don't just happen without cause and that we should be mindful of the effects our actions have on us and on others. It is not like in Hinduism where Karma says doing bad (or good) things will cause bad (or good) things to happen to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Trust but verify would have been appropriate in 2001. These fuckers are well past the point where any further trust is merited.
Even if it were true, which isn't likely, the absolute contempt this administration has for oversight compared to the Clinton administration would makes the circumstances incomparable.
It is possible that in a future election a third party candidate could win enough electoral votes such that the President would be elected without a majority of the electoral votes. By your reasoning, wouldn't make the electoral votes just as meaningless as the popular vote?
Do you think we should get rid of the "meaningless tally" that each state uses in the general election to choose its electors votes as well? It's not in the Constitution, so why should we bother, right? How about we just flip coins or better yet sell the votes to the highest bidder.
Our voting system is severely broken. That you seem to be aware of many of its defects in your original post and yet still fully supportive of it baffles me.
I'm sure they couldn't find the relays because of all the broken pencil leads in their eyes.
No ones is saying he's cheating, just that he isn't qualified to complete in the Olympics. There is nothing wrong with that, most people aren't qualified.
Back in the late 90's using only Applescript and the Apple built in speech recognition I was able to voice automate my music library. I don't remember all the details, but I could start and stop the music and select what artist I wanted to hear. It was pretty neat being able to say "Computer, play Nirvana" and getting my music all from the comfort of my bed.
Aphorisms are meaningless. Being unreasonable is not necessary or sufficient for making progress. Most of the time it results in wasted time and effort while those more open to reality have gone on to more useful endeavors.
True enough, I'm still fairly new to the state. All I know is that my bill from SDGE is based on how much energy I use.
Either way the parents fear of abuse seems equally unfounded.
Catholic's consider Peter to have been the first pope, do they not? That would mean the Catholic faith existed before Paul. Regardless of if you consider Peter or Paul to be the start of Catholicism most of the books of the Bible had been written before Catholicism, but could you really call them the Bible?
For the first several hundred years before the New Testament Canon was established the New Testament books were distributed and read by followers along with countless other books that were not accepted into the canon. Since their was at the time no accepted set of books for the churches to refer to anything that you would call a bible at the time would at the very least be very different from our current Bible and would certainly contain writings that are no longer considered Christian.
No, even if you have a heater it is trivial for a thermostat to be designed to not allow anything to be turned on remotely. This is not an issue.
I wouldn't really say my use of dogmatic was ironic, I intended it in the religious sense in that questioning of the trinity is heresy in many (probably most) Christian churches.
Can we ban commercial air conditioning first? It's warm out, I don't want to have to dig out a sweater and wool cap when I want to go to a restaurant or movie theater.
I can't imagine they would. I trust the power companies wants to sell you as much electricity as they possibly can and would only throttle it when they have to.
Yeah, but now we'll be sure those 9/11 hijackers get caught they next time they try anything. I feel safer already.
It's actually a hybrid of capitalism and socialism.
Parts of it are such as time dilation and the bending of light by gravity, just as parts of the theory of evolution are fact, such as the fact that things evolve.
Well the concept of the trinity isn't Biblical, so I've never understood why Christianity is so dogmatic about it.
The Tao in Taoism just refers to the universe and its laws. It's been awhile since I've studied up on Taosim, but I don't recall it necessarily having any mystical traits.
As for Buddhism, you may be confusing the Hindu concept of Karma and Dharma with the Buddhist concepts. They are different. My understanding of Buddhist Dharma is that it is just the collected teachings of the Buddha. Now it's true that many Buddhists see the Dharma as sacred, but many do not (e.g. the "kill the Buddha" teaching) and certainly the Buddha didn't teach that it was sacred as far as I've seen.
Karma in Buddhism is the law of cause and effect. The idea of Karma is to remind us that things don't just happen without cause and that we should be mindful of the effects our actions have on us and on others. It is not like in Hinduism where Karma says doing bad (or good) things will cause bad (or good) things to happen to you.