Progress towards achieving the ideals of what they see as the fundamentals of their religion is OK. Because by that definition, overturning Roe vs. Wade would be changing the status quo too. We all know that is an aim of fundamentalists.
Prior to Roe vs. Wade, back in the 40's - 60's a lot of Christian fundamentalists were liberal democrats because of the part of Chritianity that supports "social justice". A lot of the whites involved in civil rights were christians (from the north) who believed that discrimination is wrong. For example, quakers and other groups. The republicans were mostly aligned with the rich and big business which is why they typically were not winning elections prior to 1968.
The one exception , Eisenhower, could have been elected as either a republican or a democrat as he was in charge of the Allied victory in Europe.
By 1968, the democrats had self destructed over vietnam, the hippy rhetoric took over the party, the civil rights issue had permanently caused three southern states (Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama) to switch from "solidly democrat" onto their course of eventually becoming solidly republican.
Prior to 1980, when people thought of religion in politics, they thought of the democratic party. People were afraid when Jimmy Carter was elected because he was a "religious fundamentalist". And in fact, he was a very principled man who is deeply religious to the point where he was willing to let the US be embarassed (Iran Hostage Crisis) because of his principles.
To those who will no doubt say "What else could Carter have done?". I guarentee if Teddy Roosevelt had been President the situation would not have gone on for 444 days. Carter could have, for example, diplomatically "recognized" Iran and then asked Congress to declare war on them declaring our "war aim" to be the return of the hostages unharmed OR the unconditional surrender of Iran. I personally think that would have scared Iran into coughing up the hostages very quickly.
That just paranoid. I resolve things with people who are working for me in person because its quicker than going back and forth in email. Often my concern is making sure that we are on the same page on issues NOW, not later after someone has made a mistake (either technical or political). I'm not doing it to prevent some kind of paper trail.
I would only expect gangsters to act the way they acted in response. Another poster already stated that he would expect them to investigate the allegations and correct the problem. The fact that they didn't tells me they are gangsters.
When I bought my first generation iPod, it was my *third* music player and it was a better deal than either of the ones I had before.
There was nothing better out there that would work with the Mac. Plus, like many other Apple products, I'm still using it years later while my other music players were returned to the store and sitting in a desk respectively.
apple is stylish because typically artists want them and make decisions not on specifications and performance to cost ratios alone but if it looks pretty in their "space"
If that were true, the PowerMac G4 Cube would have been a top seller.
The reality is that the iPod works well, and delivers a good deal for the price. It is now enjoying a certain amount of brand momentum.
People who buy Macintoshes buy them for rational reasons and pick the models they do for rational reasons. The "look" of the machine is a nudge factor that people consider "when all else is equal". But they do not pay a premium for "looks". (Again the G4 Cube example.)
No, its not an important distinction unless you are trying to show that the city government is part of a scam to undercut the free market price of real estate.
Slashdot Mirror
When they pass a budget, they will retroactively pay everyone for the time they are off. They always do.
That's hilarious. Do people call your house asking to speak with your dog? Do you let them?
Whose stopping anyone from praying in school? As long as there are exams, there will be prayer in school.
Oh, you mean your right to force everyone else to participate in a public lead prayer? I guess I didn't understand you.
Yes, your rights to force me and my children to pray are certainly being infringed. You should be outraged.
Progress towards achieving the ideals of what they see as the fundamentals of their religion is OK. Because by that definition, overturning Roe vs. Wade would be changing the status quo too. We all know that is an aim of fundamentalists.
Prior to Roe vs. Wade, back in the 40's - 60's a lot of Christian fundamentalists were liberal democrats because of the part of Chritianity that supports "social justice". A lot of the whites involved in civil rights were christians (from the north) who believed that discrimination is wrong. For example, quakers and other groups. The republicans were mostly aligned with the rich and big business which is why they typically were not winning elections prior to 1968.
The one exception , Eisenhower, could have been elected as either a republican or a democrat as he was in charge of the Allied victory in Europe.
By 1968, the democrats had self destructed over vietnam, the hippy rhetoric took over the party, the civil rights issue had permanently caused three southern states (Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama) to switch from "solidly democrat" onto their course of eventually becoming solidly republican.
Prior to 1980, when people thought of religion in politics, they thought of the democratic party. People were afraid when Jimmy Carter was elected because he was a "religious fundamentalist". And in fact, he was a very principled man who is deeply religious to the point where he was willing to let the US be embarassed (Iran Hostage Crisis) because of his principles.
To those who will no doubt say "What else could Carter have done?". I guarentee if Teddy Roosevelt had been President the situation would not have gone on for 444 days. Carter could have, for example, diplomatically "recognized" Iran and then asked Congress to declare war on them declaring our "war aim" to be the return of the hostages unharmed OR the unconditional surrender of Iran. I personally think that would have scared Iran into coughing up the hostages very quickly.
Fuck what the Founding Fathers intended. (They are dead anyway.) Anyone who cares about freedom and property rights should support such an amendment!
That just paranoid. I resolve things with people who are working for me in person because its quicker than going back and forth in email. Often my concern is making sure that we are on the same page on issues NOW, not later after someone has made a mistake (either technical or political). I'm not doing it to prevent some kind of paper trail.
Yes. He would be far better off if we all donated a dollar to his defense.
I would only expect gangsters to act the way they acted in response. Another poster already stated that he would expect them to investigate the allegations and correct the problem. The fact that they didn't tells me they are gangsters.
I always vote against incumbent judges. If everyone did that, then at least bad judges would get turned out after one term.
Yeah, but considering the financial state of Ford, I'd rather have Ferrari's profits.
More like a Ford Expedition saying its going to catch a hellicopter in a race around a group of islands.
That's a very weak argument. What you are calling "overpriced but within reason" I would call "competitive".
Loser.
You aren't supposed to give blood if you sleep with prostitutes.
Where are you getting this "price premium" stuff?
When I bought my first generation iPod, it was my *third* music player and it was a better deal than either of the ones I had before.
There was nothing better out there that would work with the Mac. Plus, like many other Apple products, I'm still using it years later while my other music players were returned to the store and sitting in a desk respectively.
apple is stylish because typically artists want them and make decisions not on specifications and performance to cost ratios alone but if it looks pretty in their "space"
If that were true, the PowerMac G4 Cube would have been a top seller.
The reality is that the iPod works well, and delivers a good deal for the price. It is now enjoying a certain amount of brand momentum.
People who buy Macintoshes buy them for rational reasons and pick the models they do for rational reasons. The "look" of the machine is a nudge factor that people consider "when all else is equal". But they do not pay a premium for "looks". (Again the G4 Cube example.)
If not, does poor programming style count as obfuscation and is therefore prohibited?
That would be yet another another legal case against Microsoft.
Like cases where you can't find the song you want on iTMS, but you *can* find it using LimeWire.
Not really. Clinton cut welfare, etc. and also spent lots of money "putting new police on the streets".
Gore proposed more on military spending than Bush.
Bush wants to give money to churches for social programs...
So, I don't really see much difference in what they are spending it on.
It is also that way here in Oregon. Lots of employeers will try to force you to resign rather than lay off.
Because that way some insurance company CEO can steal the money instead of some identity thief. Said CEO donates to polital campaigns.
Clearly, you are what is wrong with the world.
No, its not an important distinction unless you are trying to show that the city government is part of a scam to undercut the free market price of real estate.
Clearly, you are a lunatic.