You'll notice it's actually a bipartisan effort, dispite the popular myth of it being a strictly Democrat problem. Regardless, the issue the grandparent is posting about is actually a dead horse, as Daley is no longer in power. His son, Richard M. Daley, however, is. There are rumors of corruption in this Daley's administration as well. Although, I haven't heard anything about voter fraud per se. If I remember correctly, Patrick Fitzgerald has been going after elements of the Daley regieme. This is probably why the Republicans picked him to investigate the Whitehouse treason case.
If you want current Democrat vote fraud cases, you can look up the Saint Louis cases and the problems in a few counties in West Virginia. Small potatoes compaired to the apparent national and state wide Republican machines, but they exist, regardless.
They didn't even need to hack the things in Ohio. (In '04, I mean) All that was needed was for certain precincts to be assigned one or two machines and put the extras in certain other districts and voila: A precinct that votes one way has a 10 hour line while a precinct that votes the other way is in and out in under 5 minutes.
That's in addition to the moving polling places around, closing polling places early, having people of color's eligability being challenged by party operatives, voter registration drives that throw away applications that have a certain party checked, not counting provisional ballots, etc...
Then if it's still close at the end of the night, have 4000 votes magically appear from nowhere in the last 15 minutes of the count on the electronic voting machines.
In other words, this isn't just a one trick pony, kids.
It's not as stupid as you think if you take into account basic physics.
Lets looks at another natural vortex with a similar form: A water spout.
A true water spout forms when you have relatively warm water with cooler air above it. The "storm" above it is usually little, if any, more than a fair weather shower over open water. The warm water heats the air immediately above the sea surface; the warmed air pools and eventually pokes a hole in the cooler air above it; and you have a water spout.
Basically the water spout is completely dependant on that warm water for it's "life." So, why are true water spouts a threat to land? Momentum. They will continue to spin for a short while even though their fuel source is being rapidly cut off from them and friction slows them down.
So, basically, if one of these gets out, it is possible that it could damage things nearby before it completely disapates.
The single-warhead RS-12M Topol has a range of 6,900 miles. The Topol carries on-board steering rockets that allow it to make evasive maneuvers in flight on the way to its target, meaning it can evade any terminal phase interceptors.
The warhead is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance, and designed to be able to withstand nuclear blasts as close as a third of a mile away.
From what I read of the Canadian Government's immigration website, you are basically scored on your worth as a speciallized worker. So basically you need either a lot of work experience, have a graduate degree, or already have a job promised to you if you move there. Knowing French is a plus, but not required.
Yeah, it's a racket. One way to stop all these impertinent consumers from getting all uppity and actually challenging it in court is to make it so the penalties are much worse. Egads, these peons actually think they are still citizens and actually have something called rights! How dare they!
That way, you'll be glad to give that $20,000 settlement and swear fealty to your corporate masters rather than risk going to prison, even if you are innocent.
I'd just like to point out that the one of the main reasons I did not like, and would not vote for Democrats back in the 90s was because they would bend over backwards to kiss Hollywood's IP lobbyist's asses. (The other was they kept trying to censor the internet in order to woo the Christian Coalition people.)
Meet the new boss. Naw, he's not the same. He's worse.
I believe he is either hinting at the possible renewal of oil supplies by either bacteriological means or the decomposition of organic matter over millions of years. By his attitude, however, it seems likely that he has not taken into account that both processes would require millions of years to replenish supplies and we are consuming the current supply at a far faster rate than its renewal rate.
It is also possible that we may not technically run out of oil because at the point in which drilling and pumping the remaining oil reserves becomes economically unfeasable, we would leave the rest be.
1. Private Corporation: Why should they sink tons of money into in depth studies for less profit when they can rake it in with cheap "reporting" of shiney object stories and adlibed press releases.
2. The Bigots: There are some people that think facts are biased, items of evidence are forgeries, and will lash out at any media that does not conform to their own personal views. So, naturally, a media company will shy away from stories. And, when it does cover one, almost always reports what one person says, what the person that disagree's with him/her says, and makes little to no attempt to see who is factually correct.
3. Self Interest: Think about it, how many media companies are actually independant nowadays? Many of these mega-conglomerates are not only in the media business, and may try to avoid information which may cause problems for other parts of the conglomerate. In addition, many people have items in their life outside of work and act similarly.:p
These apply to specialized web only editions or television or anywhere else.
Personally, I would like to know the percentages of which are personal lawsuits, class action lawsuits, government lawsuits, and company v. company lawsuits as well as actual expenses (not just awards).
Because the rank and file population would rather watch the latest interview with the cousin of a close friend's nephew of a neighbor that once met the Aruba girl sometime back in the early 90's. You think Joe and Jane Sixpack will not change the channel to the latest reality TV craze if an in depth analysis of legal statistics is on?
Hello, folks!?!? This is what you get when you watch news for entertainment and ego massaging value....when you demand that the news only report things that don't conflict with your beliefs. The latest "ooo shiney," spun in a way to make you feel good about yourself, and not much else.
Thank you, sir. I lived in American Sector, Berlin, Germany for 4 years back during the cold war. We had terrorist attacks from the Baader-Meinhof Gang. It wasn't that big of a deal. My family and I just learned to keep an ear out for bomb threats and to stop and let the MPs search bags and under vehicles when going to American facilities. I was more threatened by a couple of boys that had gotten ahold of one of their parents knifes and decided to come after me with it.
Seriously, you learn to live with it. Panicing and running scared from every concievable threat is probably the worst thing you could do.
"That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
Yet, you do it again...
"It's not a subjective interpretation when it literally and directly says something. There's no room for interpretation in cases like that."
I wasn't aware the books of the bible where written originally in pseudo-archaic American English, sorry.
"The bible doesn't talk about sex outside of marriage in just one place, with one set of terms, where a single mis-translation could change the meaning of it. As I said, this is a theme in the bible that is repeated over and over again."
As I recall, part of the guy's point was that this error was repeated throughout.
"It's overwhelmingly clear that you have NEVER read the bible, yet you feel you're qualified to argue about what it does and doesn't say."
Just because I am willing to ponder potential and different meanings arising out of the fact that the modern bible was not written by one being at one time does not mean that I have never read the bible or that I am an atheist or pagan like you are trying to insinuate. I am currently working on the book of Jeremiah, FYI. I will admit I have not been reading it enough in the past few years, this doesn't not mean I don't read it at all. Also, I have never said that I have some kind of religious authority to claim what is and isn't in the bible. I was merely pondering the possibility.
"That is real ignorance."
Real ignorance is automatically assuming that everyone with a different opinion is wrong....or in your case "liberal."...probably the same difference to you, since you used it in that sense.
"That is as bad of a case of blindly believing as I've ever seen,..."
So, considering other points of view as potentially valid is now blind faith. Cute.
"... although the OPPOSITE of the kind of blind faith most people think of."
Nice try. So, not only am I a "liberal" for even thinking about someone elses point of view seriously, but I'm a devil worshiper, too. That makes your last comment a real gem.
"I did. Quite clearly. You seem to be the one who clearly wants to make a name-calling match out of it."
Zip to your first post in thread:
"Well, at least this is newer and less repetitive than the "BSD is dying" troll, but it's no more true. This guy is banking on current anti-conservative sentiment here, and most people's complete lack of knowledge of the bible. The bible speaks repeatedly about this issue. I don't know why people even keep trying to argue it."
This is the clearly reasoned argument you claim to have made. Let's see, you call people a bunch of names and make accusations. The only thing close to an argument or even a reason is a statement that the entire point of the parent's post was to call into question. It is the equivilant of screaming "No! It's not!" and then not bothering to even try to show that it's not....and since you repeatedly imply that I am both anti-conservative (euphamism for the right wing's redefinition of the word "liberal") and anti-christian in your posts, I think my reply was accurate:
"Get that guys? If you don't agree with his subjective interpretation, well then you must be Anti-conservative! For those that don't understand wingnut, that means he thinks you are a bunch of anti-christian liberals for even considering it."
The only ad hominem in my reply was the "wingnut" term compared to your 3 in the first post. Why did I say wingnut? Because people that normally couple what is currently termed "conservatism" with their religion usually are people that equate and/or substitute their political ideology with thier religion. To be fair, I would have said much the same thing if you had called everyone "anti-liberal" as well....not that you'll care or believe me, though.
My username comes from a comic book charactor I invented about 10 years ago. Around that time I got introduced to internet relay chat and needed a nickname.
You're just assuming anyone who has different religous beliefs is anti-conservative. That's rarely the case. You just want to be morally superior, so thinking of everyone who disagrees with you as a "liberal" makes you feel better about yourself, and allows you to discount others out of hand, not bothering to even CONSIDER what they have to say.
Nice try waiting until the story cycled off to try and get the last word in. Unless you are god or you wrote the book yourself, you are relying on a subjective interpretation of what the bible says. Whether it is yours or someone elses. And the OP says that the the sex outside of marriage interpretation was due to a translation error and the evolution of the meaning of words over time. He does say it was wrong in cases where someone is already "married." Don't talk about facts when you know damn well you are basing it off of your faith, not a fact. So, unless Jesus died and made you God, Mr. Pot, I suggest you either argue your position with reason or STFU. Bearing false witness is a sin last I checked.
Get that guys? If you don't agree with his subjective interpretation, well then you must be Anti-conservative! For those that don't understand wingnut, that means he thinks you are a bunch of anti-christian liberals for even considering it.
Well, if I understand the grandparent's post correctly, then biblical marriage seems to be little more than a social agreement between two people for the purpose of sexual relations. It would seem that adultry then would either be being involved sexually with someone else at the time outside of the agreement or possibly without any kind of agreement at all (rape). I wonder what the implications for poligomy then are.
I also wonder if by using this form of marriage for preventing perversion, the verses mean to quell perverse actions originating from both sexual frustration and/or sexual promiscuity.
Oh, the grandparent also hits on an important point with today's interpretation of the bible. It has been translated, retranslated, and selectively rewritten over the millenia (as well as politically "spun" interpretations). So, it is no suprise that the current intrepretation of the bible is not the original meaning of it.
Did you think for some reason I'd craft a search that wouldn't have articles from apologists in it as well? Why should I have to go out of my way to censor someone elses frickin opinion to make mine valid? And don't be dense, the "devient" part refers to the part about prosecuting based on local obscenity laws.
Federal obscenity prosecutions, which have been out of style since Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration made pornography a signature issue in the 1980s, do "encounter many legal issues, including First Amendment claims," the FBI headquarters memo noted.
Applicants for the squad should therefore have a stomach for the kind of material that tends to be most offensive to local juries. Community standards - along with a prurient purpose and absence of artistic merit - define criminal obscenity under current Supreme Court doctrine.
"Based on a review of past successful cases," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."
No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.
Of course they leave out which locallity. So, this leaves open the possiblitity that in a locallity where masturbation is legally obscene, a pornographer could be prosicuted there for having a website accessable from there depicting masturbation.
And my search "FBI pornography" was broad enough to include other articles about different events including ones on "FBI child pornography." Yours was too restrictive by using the word "devient" which was not present in any of the articles, but was implied however, in the main stream media related to this."
And my point is why the hell is the FBI involved in local enforcement matter? The feds are supposed to only be involved deal with nation wide matters unless there is a national emergency (example, 3 states hit by a catastrophic hurricane). Or, a state is violating the constitutional (including amendments) rights of someone or something. Example: Civil Rights.
And, maybe I'm just biased, but I think gunning for porn is a waste of federal resources and tax dollars. Maybe the feds can declare it a "top priority" and go hunt down and prosecute people for spitting in public as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? They've already done "Cow Piss" water. (Actually, I'm not sure if it's Coke or Pepsi that owns it...)
FYI, I'm not the grandparent. But, here's a little info.
Richard J. Daley
You'll notice it's actually a bipartisan effort, dispite the popular myth of it being a strictly Democrat problem. Regardless, the issue the grandparent is posting about is actually a dead horse, as Daley is no longer in power. His son, Richard M. Daley, however, is. There are rumors of corruption in this Daley's administration as well. Although, I haven't heard anything about voter fraud per se. If I remember correctly, Patrick Fitzgerald has been going after elements of the Daley regieme. This is probably why the Republicans picked him to investigate the Whitehouse treason case.
If you want current Democrat vote fraud cases, you can look up the Saint Louis cases and the problems in a few counties in West Virginia. Small potatoes compaired to the apparent national and state wide Republican machines, but they exist, regardless.
They didn't even need to hack the things in Ohio. (In '04, I mean) All that was needed was for certain precincts to be assigned one or two machines and put the extras in certain other districts and voila: A precinct that votes one way has a 10 hour line while a precinct that votes the other way is in and out in under 5 minutes.
That's in addition to the moving polling places around, closing polling places early, having people of color's eligability being challenged by party operatives, voter registration drives that throw away applications that have a certain party checked, not counting provisional ballots, etc...
Then if it's still close at the end of the night, have 4000 votes magically appear from nowhere in the last 15 minutes of the count on the electronic voting machines.
In other words, this isn't just a one trick pony, kids.
It's not as stupid as you think if you take into account basic physics.
Lets looks at another natural vortex with a similar form: A water spout.
A true water spout forms when you have relatively warm water with cooler air above it. The "storm" above it is usually little, if any, more than a fair weather shower over open water. The warm water heats the air immediately above the sea surface; the warmed air pools and eventually pokes a hole in the cooler air above it; and you have a water spout.
Basically the water spout is completely dependant on that warm water for it's "life." So, why are true water spouts a threat to land? Momentum. They will continue to spin for a short while even though their fuel source is being rapidly cut off from them and friction slows them down.
So, basically, if one of these gets out, it is possible that it could damage things nearby before it completely disapates.
"...but they're still slurping a monsterous percentage of the Colorado River."
I wouldn't recommend that for pregnant women BTW.
The stuff tends to concentrate in breast milk and in some produce.
From what I read of the Canadian Government's immigration website, you are basically scored on your worth as a speciallized worker. So basically you need either a lot of work experience, have a graduate degree, or already have a job promised to you if you move there. Knowing French is a plus, but not required.
Here is a link to a test to give you an idea at what you are looking at.
Yeah, it's a racket. One way to stop all these impertinent consumers from getting all uppity and actually challenging it in court is to make it so the penalties are much worse. Egads, these peons actually think they are still citizens and actually have something called rights! How dare they!
That way, you'll be glad to give that $20,000 settlement and swear fealty to your corporate masters rather than risk going to prison, even if you are innocent.
God help America...
I'd just like to point out that the one of the main reasons I did not like, and would not vote for Democrats back in the 90s was because they would bend over backwards to kiss Hollywood's IP lobbyist's asses. (The other was they kept trying to censor the internet in order to woo the Christian Coalition people.)
Meet the new boss. Naw, he's not the same. He's worse.
Reminds me of something...
Actually, I'd prefer a satalite that consists of an mirror array. Then I'd just need to breed some super intelligent ants to control it...
I believe he is either hinting at the possible renewal of oil supplies by either bacteriological means or the decomposition of organic matter over millions of years. By his attitude, however, it seems likely that he has not taken into account that both processes would require millions of years to replenish supplies and we are consuming the current supply at a far faster rate than its renewal rate.
It is also possible that we may not technically run out of oil because at the point in which drilling and pumping the remaining oil reserves becomes economically unfeasable, we would leave the rest be.
Bah, it's been a long day.
:p
But, the basic premise still stands.
1. Private Corporation: Why should they sink tons of money into in depth studies for less profit when they can rake it in with cheap "reporting" of shiney object stories and adlibed press releases.
2. The Bigots: There are some people that think facts are biased, items of evidence are forgeries, and will lash out at any media that does not conform to their own personal views. So, naturally, a media company will shy away from stories. And, when it does cover one, almost always reports what one person says, what the person that disagree's with him/her says, and makes little to no attempt to see who is factually correct.
3. Self Interest: Think about it, how many media companies are actually independant nowadays? Many of these mega-conglomerates are not only in the media business, and may try to avoid information which may cause problems for other parts of the conglomerate. In addition, many people have items in their life outside of work and act similarly.
These apply to specialized web only editions or television or anywhere else.
Personally, I would like to know the percentages of which are personal lawsuits, class action lawsuits, government lawsuits, and company v. company lawsuits as well as actual expenses (not just awards).
Because the rank and file population would rather watch the latest interview with the cousin of a close friend's nephew of a neighbor that once met the Aruba girl sometime back in the early 90's. You think Joe and Jane Sixpack will not change the channel to the latest reality TV craze if an in depth analysis of legal statistics is on?
...when you demand that the news only report things that don't conflict with your beliefs. The latest "ooo shiney," spun in a way to make you feel good about yourself, and not much else.
Hello, folks!?!? This is what you get when you watch news for entertainment and ego massaging value.
Thank you, sir. I lived in American Sector, Berlin, Germany for 4 years back during the cold war. We had terrorist attacks from the Baader-Meinhof Gang. It wasn't that big of a deal. My family and I just learned to keep an ear out for bomb threats and to stop and let the MPs search bags and under vehicles when going to American facilities. I was more threatened by a couple of boys that had gotten ahold of one of their parents knifes and decided to come after me with it.
Seriously, you learn to live with it. Panicing and running scared from every concievable threat is probably the worst thing you could do.
Way to go! You didn't even recognize your own argument when I turned it against you.
Hypocrite.
Yet, you do it again...
"It's not a subjective interpretation when it literally and directly says something. There's no room for interpretation in cases like that."
I wasn't aware the books of the bible where written originally in pseudo-archaic American English, sorry.
"The bible doesn't talk about sex outside of marriage in just one place, with one set of terms, where a single mis-translation could change the meaning of it. As I said, this is a theme in the bible that is repeated over and over again."
As I recall, part of the guy's point was that this error was repeated throughout.
"It's overwhelmingly clear that you have NEVER read the bible, yet you feel you're qualified to argue about what it does and doesn't say."
Just because I am willing to ponder potential and different meanings arising out of the fact that the modern bible was not written by one being at one time does not mean that I have never read the bible or that I am an atheist or pagan like you are trying to insinuate. I am currently working on the book of Jeremiah, FYI. I will admit I have not been reading it enough in the past few years, this doesn't not mean I don't read it at all. Also, I have never said that I have some kind of religious authority to claim what is and isn't in the bible. I was merely pondering the possibility.
"That is real ignorance."
Real ignorance is automatically assuming that everyone with a different opinion is wrong.
"That is as bad of a case of blindly believing as I've ever seen,
So, considering other points of view as potentially valid is now blind faith. Cute.
"... although the OPPOSITE of the kind of blind faith most people think of."
Nice try. So, not only am I a "liberal" for even thinking about someone elses point of view seriously, but I'm a devil worshiper, too. That makes your last comment a real gem.
"I did. Quite clearly. You seem to be the one who clearly wants to make a name-calling match out of it."
Zip to your first post in thread:
This is the clearly reasoned argument you claim to have made. Let's see, you call people a bunch of names and make accusations. The only thing close to an argument or even a reason is a statement that the entire point of the parent's post was to call into question. It is the equivilant of screaming "No! It's not!" and then not bothering to even try to show that it's not. ...and since you repeatedly imply that I am both anti-conservative (euphamism for the right wing's redefinition of the word "liberal") and anti-christian in your posts, I think my reply was accurate:
The only ad hominem in my reply was the "wingnut" term compared to your 3 in the first post. Why did I say wingnut? Because people that normally couple what is currently termed "conservatism" with their religion usually are people that equate and/or substitute their political ideology with thier religion. To be fair, I would have said much the same thing if you had called everyone "anti-liberal" as well. ...not that you'll care or believe me, though.
Then you procede to call
My username comes from a comic book charactor I invented about 10 years ago. Around that time I got introduced to internet relay chat and needed a nickname.
You're just assuming anyone who has different religous beliefs is anti-conservative. That's rarely the case. You just want to be morally superior, so thinking of everyone who disagrees with you as a "liberal" makes you feel better about yourself, and allows you to discount others out of hand, not bothering to even CONSIDER what they have to say.
Nice try waiting until the story cycled off to try and get the last word in. Unless you are god or you wrote the book yourself, you are relying on a subjective interpretation of what the bible says. Whether it is yours or someone elses. And the OP says that the the sex outside of marriage interpretation was due to a translation error and the evolution of the meaning of words over time. He does say it was wrong in cases where someone is already "married." Don't talk about facts when you know damn well you are basing it off of your faith, not a fact. So, unless Jesus died and made you God, Mr. Pot, I suggest you either argue your position with reason or STFU. Bearing false witness is a sin last I checked.
Get that guys? If you don't agree with his subjective interpretation, well then you must be Anti-conservative! For those that don't understand wingnut, that means he thinks you are a bunch of anti-christian liberals for even considering it.
Well, if I understand the grandparent's post correctly, then biblical marriage seems to be little more than a social agreement between two people for the purpose of sexual relations. It would seem that adultry then would either be being involved sexually with someone else at the time outside of the agreement or possibly without any kind of agreement at all (rape). I wonder what the implications for poligomy then are.
I also wonder if by using this form of marriage for preventing perversion, the verses mean to quell perverse actions originating from both sexual frustration and/or sexual promiscuity.
Oh, the grandparent also hits on an important point with today's interpretation of the bible. It has been translated, retranslated, and selectively rewritten over the millenia (as well as politically "spun" interpretations). So, it is no suprise that the current intrepretation of the bible is not the original meaning of it.
Of course they leave out which locallity. So, this leaves open the possiblitity that in a locallity where masturbation is legally obscene, a pornographer could be prosicuted there for having a website accessable from there depicting masturbation.
And my search "FBI pornography" was broad enough to include other articles about different events including ones on "FBI child pornography." Yours was too restrictive by using the word "devient" which was not present in any of the articles, but was implied however, in the main stream media related to this."
And my point is why the hell is the FBI involved in local enforcement matter? The feds are supposed to only be involved deal with nation wide matters unless there is a national emergency (example, 3 states hit by a catastrophic hurricane). Or, a state is violating the constitutional (including amendments) rights of someone or something. Example: Civil Rights.
And, maybe I'm just biased, but I think gunning for porn is a waste of federal resources and tax dollars. Maybe the feds can declare it a "top priority" and go hunt down and prosecute people for spitting in public as well.
Oops, looks like it was struck down by the VASC this year in January. Here's a Findlaw article.
This Google search helps.