Have you ever worked an unsuccessful code on a 6 year old? Have you ever gone out to a call and found a person who'd literally had their head crushed? Have you ever seen someone who was shot 12 times with shotguns, or a person who was stabbed 56 times?
Until you have, I suggest you STFU.
If you were to send out pictures to civilians about a crime scene you are effectively contaminating the scene because you could be releasing evidence to the public (and therefore potential suspects) that typically you would want to remain private information. How do you justify taking pictures due to "stress" when you would be contaminating a crime scene and therefore not doing your job properly?
In 2006, an eighteen-year-old woman was decapitated in a traffic accident. Two of the police officers who reported to the scene emailed photos of the woman's body to their friends and family one Halloween."
Sounds like they have a problem with immature police officers as well. Hopefully the officers got reprimanded for doing that.
Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree.
Hmmm, definitely sounds like Obama. He knows what's good for us because we're just all stupid folk so we don't know nothing. He doesn't listen to what we want and will make us swallow whatever he thinks we should have. That makes for a great president, or at least one with a 40%-50% approval rating. You'd think he take the hint. Polls don't lie but I'm sure this will get modded troll anyway.
The thing to learn in Venezuela is that you can't really be too successful.
Socialism has the same privileges: you can't really be too successful, unless you are part of the socialist government. Otherwise all the money you earn goes towards supporting the poor or the government thus flattening the class structure or filling the pockets of the ruling class, respectively. Success is punished if you are not part of the ruling class.
When you can't take that any more, start in on the "Federalist Papers." They're dry, they're tedious, and they'll permanently put to bed any idea that this was meant to be a "Christian" nation.
I didn't say that the Founding Fathers intended us to specifically have a Christian nation. There is no denying we have religious roots though with "endowed by our Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence.
Those men in Texas have forgotten this. They don't want to take up their cross. They want to lay down the law. They seek to further the Kingdom by political will, rather than by feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked and visiting the imprisoned.
If the liberals who hate religion would ever get their way to lay down the law then all religion would be banned in this country unless it was talked about and practiced within the confines of a church or home. The atheists and others who believe in the separation of church and state are the ones who don't want to take up the cross. Go preach to someone else such as an atheist on this site. I don't need it. I'm not someone who wants to make sure all religion is hidden from view (or eradicated completely) like others on this site would prefer.
In this case the issue really is just teaching people about what other people believed in so yes it is about historical fact. That is different than the usual debate of teaching religion itself in schools. Why is it so bad to teach people that people in the past had a religious background? Why is all discussion about religion so bad? I just don't get it. If they suffered religious persecution in the past as you said then that should provide even more reason to teach students about the plight that those Founding Fathers had to endure so that it does not happen again. Up until this vote passed, it was questionable as to whether students would be allowed to learn about that religious persecution and the Founding Fathers' continued faith as they were founding the U.S.
So conservatives are anti-intellectual? Let me guess, you are liberal and are a genius? Anyone not on your side is stupid? That isn't elitist in the least. Conservatives really are under attack based on comments from people like you.
I, as a former conservative Christian (now an atheist), find it strange that they feel that god needs the government's help to promote his message. They're going to help GOD ALMIGHTY to get HIS message out because he's obviously having a hard time doing it himself. Kind of like how they are fucking screaming mad if you suggest taking "In God We Trust" off of the currency, meanwhile we spend just about as much as the rest of the world combined on our military.
We don't need the government's help to promote His message. It is nothing of the sort and would mean preaching would be in the classroom. Given the fact that liberals want to diminish or totally hide the fact that the Founding Fathers had faith and a religious background, the other side of the debate simply wants to make sure that those facets of the Founding Fathers' lives remain known. There is no reason to hide that fact unless the agenda is to try to make our country look like it was not founded on religious beliefs. So there is no message trying to be forced upon or preached to the children. It is simply a matter of not wanting to hide our history.
As far as taking "In God We Trust" off the currency, it is for the same reason as what I stated above. There is nothing wrong with making known our history just because it has a religious foundation, except for those who hate religion. Why religion is the aspect of people's lives that shouldn't be known in history class is beyond me but that's really the topic up for debate (well, not anymore, at least in Texas). So taking that phrase off our currency means that a little more of our history is erased. It isn't for enforcing a religion; it is intended to remember our history. In both situations, those who disagree can simply do that. Just like they can disagree, if they are a student, with anything else that is taught in their respective school. It is not the law but a reflection of where we came from. Those who question that or outright deny it are also against this vote most likely. Again, what is wrong with stating what history has to say? Is there something you don't want the public to know? Is religion *that* bad? No, it isn't.
Look at it this way, if it was a dog suffering that bad, would you put them out of their suffering? Then why the hell subject someone you love to that much pain?
The problem with that logic is that who defines the quality of life and whether it is bad or good? This is the same issue with abortion and assisted suicide. The excuse is frequently something along the lines that person A wanting to get rid of person B does it based on stating their *opinion* about person B's quality of life. It isn't person A's responsibility to state what is or is not an acceptable quality of life for anyone. Only person B can really decide that. If they are incapacitated (e.g. Terri Schiavo) then it becomes a problem because that person cannot speak for themselves (much like a baby about to be aborted). We shouldn't be essentially killing people because it is convenient. If a person is going to die due to the cancer and they don't want to live anymore because of what the treatment does to them then we aren't killing them. They will die of natural causes. But aren't we supposed to save people you ask? Obviously humans are always supposed to save someone's life if that person is in danger but there are some things we can't save people from, especially all the time.
I do some DOJ work where the contracts are components of a larger program or contract vehicle. So once the contract vehicle is established it is usually done for a reason (i.e. a lot of projects coming down the pipe to take advantage of the new contract vehicle). Multiple companies can bid on projects that utilize that contract vehicle. This means that as long as my employer continues bidding (and winning) the contracts being released for bid then I have a job. I'll just move from contract to contract. I've done this for 7 years *in the same building* and my customer has always been the DOJ. I've never had worries of being out of a job when a project I'm on is nearing completion. Note that this isn't always the case and I understand where you are coming from (i.e. many projects are one offs such as installing something or doing a small upgrade over a few months) but realize that not all contracts are like that. For reference, I used to work with (but not for) Lockheed Martin as a sub but now I work for Keane Federal Systems as a prime contractor.
The primes will fill some positions through sub-contracting (luckily, because that's how I got my foot in the door). However source selection by the government to choose a winning contractor is also key. It is sometimes based on the lowest bid but not always, especially if the customer and the source selection team are personally aware of those people who are bidding and will be on the project if they win. If the source selection is flawed then yes, bad things can happen. Where I work proposals are required to include resume's of the key people on a project so the gov't can see who will be leading the efforts. That helps the source selection team. Security clearances are sometimes required in the government which means that no foreigners will be allowed to work remotely and those who can work onsite must be capable of passing a background check.
Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe.
Not far from the truth, but I'd say it is an "amazing creation of evolution" that allows us to "experience the unfurling glory of our life in a rich universe."
Not far from the truth, but I'd say it is " only one of a massive set of amazing creations and evidence of God" that allows us to "experience his unfurling glory during our lives in this rich universe watched over by a loving God." I'm not afraid to give credit where credit is due. If you feel better thinking you are Koko's cousin and this is all one big accident then go ahead.
With my system, when I hold the power button down it *will* shut off in 5 seconds. On the other hand, sometimes I can tell Windows to shutdown my system and it simply looks back at me with those menacing eyes like I told it to go jump off a cliff (which I do eventually after it doesn't shutoff like I tell it to). In my mind, hardware acts appropriately more often than the software.
We always hear about SSD flash technology and how cool it is but we never seem to get it. SSDs are now more expensive than last year...So, what's the point of 1TB SSD when I can't even afford a 30GB one?
Bigger drives will cause the smaller drives to be discounted so that the bigger ones can squeeze into the market. Intel does this all the time with their CPUs. If you don't buy them when they are initially released you can get a particular CPU for cheap after waiting a year and letting other CPUs replace it as the top tier CPU available on the market. Traditional hard drives are more expensive when they are released because they have higher capacity which means the lower capacity drives have to drop in price so they can all share the market. We've seen this before so not sure why you are catching on by now. Obviously SSDs have a higher base price in the first place but that just means it will take longer before most people are comfortable with even buying the model that has been available for a year or so. Blu-ray players used to cost $1,000 (and some still do if you want certain features) and that base price was just too much for most people. Wait a little while.
The bug was found in a utility anyway, not the kernel, so even if XP hadn't carried the torch of the previous NT kernel and had been revamped instead, the bug would still be in XP and other recent version of Windows.
I assume the 3-second delay is while the car is in Drive? I know in Park my car will immediately turn off just by pressing the Ignition button. I also don't see how the other person said that the passenger somehow accidentally found and pressed the Ignition button while looking for navigation buttons. They aren't that close to each other and the Ignition button is angled (and lower than the radio controls) toward the driver, albeit slightly, not to mention it is labeled *Ignition* at least based on my car configuration. I have a 2010 Venza with the push-button ignition and a passenger would have to reach over really far to get to that button.
I could go on. The key point is that nations all make decisions about their priorities - the US believes in waging war and keeping the poor unhealthy and uneducated, other nations do not.
If you are poor then go to a public school...or if you are in 95% of the population that feel you don't need to go to a private school then you go to a public school, poor or not. How does that support your argument we prefer people to be uneducated? It seems that you are essentially trying to say you prefer a socialist, high-tax society? Free health care is fine and dandy if you are sick or whatever and can take advantage of it but someone who is young should be able to opt out of it and not have to pay taxes accordingly if they don't want to. Forcing people to pay taxes to give them a service they don't want or need is simply stealing under the guise of providing comprehensive services. In addition, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the U.S. gov't to provide any type of health care to anyone. It isn't an entitlement. I prefer to pay for my own services when I want to or need to and control my finances as much as I can without the government going on a power trip to tax me to death because they feel they know more than I do.
The age of consent is 16 however there can't be a difference of more than 4 years either at that age. So if you are 21 and she turns 16 you have to wait. I don't know the complete details though. I'd presume that at 18 the age difference doesn't matter. The key point is that at 16 there are stipulations in WV law that you better be aware of.
You are using this infringement argument WRONGLY. You are claiming that homosexuals infringe on the rights of heterosexuals by wanting to get married. I challenge you to present a personal (legal) right of yours that would be under attack from homosexual marriage (and no, freedom of expression/religion do not count because you can still practice your faith just fine whether or not gays are getting married).
Um, no I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that when people go to vote on legalizing gay marriage and it doesn't pass then the gays demand recounts and attempt to get the motion in front of the voters again and again until they get their way. Or what is worse is that the courts try to overturn what the people *already* voted on. The courts go beyond their power when they do that. Since your premise is wrong I have no need to respond to the remainder of the paragraph.
Your problem is that you consider "tolerance" of the Christian faith to be synonymous with "absolute obedience to it", i.e. don't do anything yourself that a devout literal-biblical Christian would not do. THAT IS NOT TOLERANCE, that is subservience! And your argument that homosexuals are being "intolerant" by wanting to get married is both ironic and moronic for this reason.
Are you saying that my religion, beliefs and faith don't matter if it means a homosexual can't get married? I *am* tolerant of homosexuals insofar as they can do whatever they want, *until* they start demanding laws and other people have to accept their way of life. No other group of people that I can think of off hand do that due to a personal choice they have made. People have to accept the consequences of their choices. (The premise here obviously being that homosexuality is a choice.) I don't hate homosexuals but I find them intolerant of people who they view as blocking their agenda of pushing homosexuality onto society by forcing society to make laws that cater to them. It is hypocritical on their part. Their agenda is blocked because most people don't want laws catering to the homosexuals, which is how the laws that try to get passed are viewed, rather than being viewed as a way to make homosexuals equal to heterosexuals.
At a fundamental level, both groups of people are human and the U.S. treats people, by law, equally at the fundamental level as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Barring things like Affirmative Action, people of one race are no longer treated better than people of another race and the same goes for gender and religion. That is because we are now viewed as human beings fundamentally. Obviously there will always be local bias but the U.S. treats all humans the same. Sexual preferences should not get special treatment. If they should get special treatment, why limit those preferences to homosexuals? Heterosexuals are people to and so are bisexuals and transgenders. Liberals want everyone to be all inclusive, remember!
Many religions, maybe even all of them, consider homosexuality to be immoral. And I'm sure some people have voted against gay marriage and didn't do so based on religious beliefs. You obviously have issues with religion in general so you won't even consider any argument that has religious underpinnings. Thanks for *your* tolerance and open-mindedness. Homosexuals aren't being intolerant by wanting to get married. They are being intolerant by pushing judges and the courts to overturn the results of voters going to the ballot boxes. And marriage *is* is a religious institution. Religious foundations shouldn't be modified so that homosexuals can get what they want on a whim because of personal decisions. There is civil unions to accommodate them. Changing religion for the sake of a minority is allowing religion to be subservient to people and that isn't how things work.
But isn't the state supposed to be separate from the church? How can there be any non-religious argument against gay marriage?
Well I don't believe "separation of church and state" implies that the citizens are not allowed to have a religion be visible in the government. The government is not allowed to force a citizen to become a member of any particular religion or rule based on a religion. If you want *that* you can go to Iran or if you had a time machine you can go to 18th century England, which is exactly the situation that the Founding Fathers did not want to duplicate. Anything short of that that someone complains about with respect to the government doing something that "violates" that "separation" is just simply a knee jerk reaction in an effort to exercise their prejudice toward anything religious.
By the way, gays can have civil unions, which by definition have no religious foundation to them. But marriage is a religious institution (not even specific to Christianity) and all religions are against homosexuality. You want the government to separate church and state with respect to gay marriage? We already have that: civil unions.
And why should homosexual bow down to the prejudice of heterosexual majority any more than black people should bow down to the prejudices of the white majority?
Um, heterosexuals are free to believe whatever they want. Why do homosexuals believe they must be accepted by everyone? Do you see murderers, rapists, and robbers trying to make their life goal to be accepted by everyone in society? They are going to find bias against them as they go back into the work force. Does that mean they are going to rise up in numbers and start picketing to get society to accept them as humans again? I have yet to see that. They don't have an agenda. They just want their life back (for those who are not repeat offenders). So why do homosexuals have an agenda to ensure they get accepted? Why should I change my belief system to accept homosexuals? I don't hate them mind you. I just don't agree with their lifestyle. I don't impose mine onto them so they shouldn't try to force me to accept their lifestyle. If you believe they have a choice in the lifestyle they choose then you also believe that they should reap the benefits and accept the consequences of that lifestyle. If you believe they are born that way then that is another whole issue altogether. Blacks are born black. There is nothing wrong with that and obviously they can't help their heritage; nor should they feel they have to. Therefore they *should* be equal to all other people. I think it is offensive to any race to compare homosexuals to them and their "fight" for acceptance because I feel homosexuals choose to be the way they are just as bisexuals choose to pick and choose on a whim whether they are going to date a male or female any given month.
Put another way, some people do have prejudice against non-white races because they are non-white. That is just plain prejudice in my opinion. The "prejudice" against gays that you speak of is faith-based. Does that mean we should make religion illegal? No. Again, the "prejudice" is that people of faith do not accept homosexuality and believe it is immoral. They feel the same way about murderers but you don't see murderers up in arms about it. Again I ask, why do the homosexuals fight so hard for acceptance? Why can't they accept that not everyone is going to agree with their lifestyle? Under the premise that they should live with the consequences of their decisions, they shouldn't demand that they get special treatment nor should they feel they are being treated less fairly than heterosexuals. Again, marriage is a religious institution and all religions are against homosexuality. So why should entire religious foundations have to be modified in order to make homosexuals happy due to their own personal decisions?
And regarding your sig.. What is so bad about universal healthcare exactl
In regards to the "majority of people" wanting drugs to be illegal - when you create a positive feedback loop of turning drug users into criminals it makes it relatively difficult to break the cycle. The majority of people in this country are against gay marriage as well: does this mean that gay marriage should be illegal?
Many laws are the result of societal standards and morals imposed hundreds of years ago (and reflect the religious underpinnings of the United States). In many states adultery is still on the books as being illegal but as societal standards and morals are lowered and because there are bigger criminals to go after the police just don't pay attention to adulterers anymore. The vast majority of the population is against murder (should it be legalized despite majority rule?). Not killing someone is also one of the Ten Commandments; so is not stealing. The point being that some laws are a result of the standards and morals that the U.S. society possesses and imposes on themselves based on the Christian faith. So, going back to your original question, for the very reasons I laid out above, yes, gay marriage should be illegal. The majority of people have already voted in many states to not legalize gay marriage. Most of those who voted against legalizing it did so based on their beliefs and faith. Homosexuals complain heterosexuals are not tolerant but homosexuals believe they should get their way and do not want to tolerate the decisions and beliefs of heterosexuals.
There is a reason that the United States is a Republic and not a pure democracy. In the words of Alexander Hamilton - the masses are asses. Irrational fears often overcome rational deduction. All you have to do is look at segregation, Japanese internment camps, and the Salem Witch Trials to realize that majority rule is not always the right way to go about deciding things in emotionally charged and sensitive matters.
Majority rule is not always the right way to go however in most cases it is. Maybe you should do homework to find out all the different situations in which majority rule *was* the right way to go instead of choosing only 3 examples of when majority rule did not make sense. More often than not the majority knows what is best. People believe in the power of numbers and having others who share your beliefs provides a support mechanism. That is just one method in which the citizens of the United States can unite despite certain minority groups wanting to tear them apart to satisfy their own agendas.
However the US government will gladly pass laws that expand its limits and/or size. It all comes down to the government being corrupt in many areas, down to specific members of Congress. Corporations can lobby Congressmen easier and more effectively than individual citizens. Congressmen will listen to the corporations more than the citizens who voted them into office.
What better way to weed out possible terrorist than strip searching everyone who does not prominently display a $0.10 pewter cross.
BRILLIANT!
Racial profiling would be better than what we have now. Instead of searching grandmothers and forcing everyone to take off their shoes they should be targeting those people who we already know have been prone to be the type to take down planes. Cops do it all the time for local investigations and the FBI does it for interstate crime. Why are we not allowed to do it, or why are some people against doing it, for terrorism?
Think about what that sentence states and answer me 2 things: 1) Does it even make any sense? and 2) What does it mean? I ask because "it is the holidays" does not make sense to me and I don't know what it means, not to mention it sounds stupid. What holidays? How can "it" be more than one holiday at the same time? Why is the non-sense term only used in December? A holiday is a specific day; not like a season that lasts for weeks. When is the proper time to start using the term "holidays" and when should I stop using the term "holidays"? Should I only do it to avoid using the term Christmas? What is the "holidays" etiquette?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever worked an unsuccessful code on a 6 year old? Have you ever gone out to a call and found a person who'd literally had their head crushed? Have you ever seen someone who was shot 12 times with shotguns, or a person who was stabbed 56 times? Until you have, I suggest you STFU.
If you were to send out pictures to civilians about a crime scene you are effectively contaminating the scene because you could be releasing evidence to the public (and therefore potential suspects) that typically you would want to remain private information. How do you justify taking pictures due to "stress" when you would be contaminating a crime scene and therefore not doing your job properly?
In 2006, an eighteen-year-old woman was decapitated in a traffic accident. Two of the police officers who reported to the scene emailed photos of the woman's body to their friends and family one Halloween."
Sounds like they have a problem with immature police officers as well. Hopefully the officers got reprimanded for doing that.
Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree.
Hmmm, definitely sounds like Obama. He knows what's good for us because we're just all stupid folk so we don't know nothing. He doesn't listen to what we want and will make us swallow whatever he thinks we should have. That makes for a great president, or at least one with a 40%-50% approval rating. You'd think he take the hint. Polls don't lie but I'm sure this will get modded troll anyway.
The thing to learn in Venezuela is that you can't really be too successful.
Socialism has the same privileges: you can't really be too successful, unless you are part of the socialist government. Otherwise all the money you earn goes towards supporting the poor or the government thus flattening the class structure or filling the pockets of the ruling class, respectively. Success is punished if you are not part of the ruling class.
I'll lay three-to-one odds that the GP was influenced by Skousen's "5,000 Year Leap,"
Never read it or heard of it so give me your money. You lost your wager.
When you can't take that any more, start in on the "Federalist Papers." They're dry, they're tedious, and they'll permanently put to bed any idea that this was meant to be a "Christian" nation.
I didn't say that the Founding Fathers intended us to specifically have a Christian nation. There is no denying we have religious roots though with "endowed by our Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence.
Those men in Texas have forgotten this. They don't want to take up their cross. They want to lay down the law. They seek to further the Kingdom by political will, rather than by feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked and visiting the imprisoned.
If the liberals who hate religion would ever get their way to lay down the law then all religion would be banned in this country unless it was talked about and practiced within the confines of a church or home. The atheists and others who believe in the separation of church and state are the ones who don't want to take up the cross. Go preach to someone else such as an atheist on this site. I don't need it. I'm not someone who wants to make sure all religion is hidden from view (or eradicated completely) like others on this site would prefer.
In this case the issue really is just teaching people about what other people believed in so yes it is about historical fact. That is different than the usual debate of teaching religion itself in schools. Why is it so bad to teach people that people in the past had a religious background? Why is all discussion about religion so bad? I just don't get it. If they suffered religious persecution in the past as you said then that should provide even more reason to teach students about the plight that those Founding Fathers had to endure so that it does not happen again. Up until this vote passed, it was questionable as to whether students would be allowed to learn about that religious persecution and the Founding Fathers' continued faith as they were founding the U.S.
So conservatives are anti-intellectual? Let me guess, you are liberal and are a genius? Anyone not on your side is stupid? That isn't elitist in the least. Conservatives really are under attack based on comments from people like you.
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
First, that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion whatsoever.
Second, how do you explain "Creator" and "Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence?
I, as a former conservative Christian (now an atheist), find it strange that they feel that god needs the government's help to promote his message. They're going to help GOD ALMIGHTY to get HIS message out because he's obviously having a hard time doing it himself. Kind of like how they are fucking screaming mad if you suggest taking "In God We Trust" off of the currency, meanwhile we spend just about as much as the rest of the world combined on our military.
We don't need the government's help to promote His message. It is nothing of the sort and would mean preaching would be in the classroom. Given the fact that liberals want to diminish or totally hide the fact that the Founding Fathers had faith and a religious background, the other side of the debate simply wants to make sure that those facets of the Founding Fathers' lives remain known. There is no reason to hide that fact unless the agenda is to try to make our country look like it was not founded on religious beliefs. So there is no message trying to be forced upon or preached to the children. It is simply a matter of not wanting to hide our history.
As far as taking "In God We Trust" off the currency, it is for the same reason as what I stated above. There is nothing wrong with making known our history just because it has a religious foundation, except for those who hate religion. Why religion is the aspect of people's lives that shouldn't be known in history class is beyond me but that's really the topic up for debate (well, not anymore, at least in Texas). So taking that phrase off our currency means that a little more of our history is erased. It isn't for enforcing a religion; it is intended to remember our history. In both situations, those who disagree can simply do that. Just like they can disagree, if they are a student, with anything else that is taught in their respective school. It is not the law but a reflection of where we came from. Those who question that or outright deny it are also against this vote most likely. Again, what is wrong with stating what history has to say? Is there something you don't want the public to know? Is religion *that* bad? No, it isn't.
Look at it this way, if it was a dog suffering that bad, would you put them out of their suffering? Then why the hell subject someone you love to that much pain?
The problem with that logic is that who defines the quality of life and whether it is bad or good? This is the same issue with abortion and assisted suicide. The excuse is frequently something along the lines that person A wanting to get rid of person B does it based on stating their *opinion* about person B's quality of life. It isn't person A's responsibility to state what is or is not an acceptable quality of life for anyone. Only person B can really decide that. If they are incapacitated (e.g. Terri Schiavo) then it becomes a problem because that person cannot speak for themselves (much like a baby about to be aborted). We shouldn't be essentially killing people because it is convenient. If a person is going to die due to the cancer and they don't want to live anymore because of what the treatment does to them then we aren't killing them. They will die of natural causes. But aren't we supposed to save people you ask? Obviously humans are always supposed to save someone's life if that person is in danger but there are some things we can't save people from, especially all the time.
I do some DOJ work where the contracts are components of a larger program or contract vehicle. So once the contract vehicle is established it is usually done for a reason (i.e. a lot of projects coming down the pipe to take advantage of the new contract vehicle). Multiple companies can bid on projects that utilize that contract vehicle. This means that as long as my employer continues bidding (and winning) the contracts being released for bid then I have a job. I'll just move from contract to contract. I've done this for 7 years *in the same building* and my customer has always been the DOJ. I've never had worries of being out of a job when a project I'm on is nearing completion. Note that this isn't always the case and I understand where you are coming from (i.e. many projects are one offs such as installing something or doing a small upgrade over a few months) but realize that not all contracts are like that. For reference, I used to work with (but not for) Lockheed Martin as a sub but now I work for Keane Federal Systems as a prime contractor.
The primes will fill some positions through sub-contracting (luckily, because that's how I got my foot in the door). However source selection by the government to choose a winning contractor is also key. It is sometimes based on the lowest bid but not always, especially if the customer and the source selection team are personally aware of those people who are bidding and will be on the project if they win. If the source selection is flawed then yes, bad things can happen. Where I work proposals are required to include resume's of the key people on a project so the gov't can see who will be leading the efforts. That helps the source selection team. Security clearances are sometimes required in the government which means that no foreigners will be allowed to work remotely and those who can work onsite must be capable of passing a background check.
Time is an artificial construct of the Human mind that allows us to mark our pitiful existence in an uncaring universe.
Not far from the truth, but I'd say it is an "amazing creation of evolution" that allows us to "experience the unfurling glory of our life in a rich universe."
Not far from the truth, but I'd say it is " only one of a massive set of amazing creations and evidence of God" that allows us to "experience his unfurling glory during our lives in this rich universe watched over by a loving God." I'm not afraid to give credit where credit is due. If you feel better thinking you are Koko's cousin and this is all one big accident then go ahead.
With my system, when I hold the power button down it *will* shut off in 5 seconds. On the other hand, sometimes I can tell Windows to shutdown my system and it simply looks back at me with those menacing eyes like I told it to go jump off a cliff (which I do eventually after it doesn't shutoff like I tell it to). In my mind, hardware acts appropriately more often than the software.
We always hear about SSD flash technology and how cool it is but we never seem to get it. SSDs are now more expensive than last year...So, what's the point of 1TB SSD when I can't even afford a 30GB one?
Bigger drives will cause the smaller drives to be discounted so that the bigger ones can squeeze into the market. Intel does this all the time with their CPUs. If you don't buy them when they are initially released you can get a particular CPU for cheap after waiting a year and letting other CPUs replace it as the top tier CPU available on the market. Traditional hard drives are more expensive when they are released because they have higher capacity which means the lower capacity drives have to drop in price so they can all share the market. We've seen this before so not sure why you are catching on by now. Obviously SSDs have a higher base price in the first place but that just means it will take longer before most people are comfortable with even buying the model that has been available for a year or so. Blu-ray players used to cost $1,000 (and some still do if you want certain features) and that base price was just too much for most people. Wait a little while.
The bug was found in a utility anyway, not the kernel, so even if XP hadn't carried the torch of the previous NT kernel and had been revamped instead, the bug would still be in XP and other recent version of Windows.
I assume the 3-second delay is while the car is in Drive? I know in Park my car will immediately turn off just by pressing the Ignition button. I also don't see how the other person said that the passenger somehow accidentally found and pressed the Ignition button while looking for navigation buttons. They aren't that close to each other and the Ignition button is angled (and lower than the radio controls) toward the driver, albeit slightly, not to mention it is labeled *Ignition* at least based on my car configuration. I have a 2010 Venza with the push-button ignition and a passenger would have to reach over really far to get to that button.
I could go on. The key point is that nations all make decisions about their priorities - the US believes in waging war and keeping the poor unhealthy and uneducated, other nations do not.
If you are poor then go to a public school...or if you are in 95% of the population that feel you don't need to go to a private school then you go to a public school, poor or not. How does that support your argument we prefer people to be uneducated? It seems that you are essentially trying to say you prefer a socialist, high-tax society? Free health care is fine and dandy if you are sick or whatever and can take advantage of it but someone who is young should be able to opt out of it and not have to pay taxes accordingly if they don't want to. Forcing people to pay taxes to give them a service they don't want or need is simply stealing under the guise of providing comprehensive services. In addition, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the U.S. gov't to provide any type of health care to anyone. It isn't an entitlement. I prefer to pay for my own services when I want to or need to and control my finances as much as I can without the government going on a power trip to tax me to death because they feel they know more than I do.
The age of consent is 16 however there can't be a difference of more than 4 years either at that age. So if you are 21 and she turns 16 you have to wait. I don't know the complete details though. I'd presume that at 18 the age difference doesn't matter. The key point is that at 16 there are stipulations in WV law that you better be aware of.
You are using this infringement argument WRONGLY. You are claiming that homosexuals infringe on the rights of heterosexuals by wanting to get married. I challenge you to present a personal (legal) right of yours that would be under attack from homosexual marriage (and no, freedom of expression/religion do not count because you can still practice your faith just fine whether or not gays are getting married).
Um, no I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that when people go to vote on legalizing gay marriage and it doesn't pass then the gays demand recounts and attempt to get the motion in front of the voters again and again until they get their way. Or what is worse is that the courts try to overturn what the people *already* voted on. The courts go beyond their power when they do that. Since your premise is wrong I have no need to respond to the remainder of the paragraph.
Your problem is that you consider "tolerance" of the Christian faith to be synonymous with "absolute obedience to it", i.e. don't do anything yourself that a devout literal-biblical Christian would not do. THAT IS NOT TOLERANCE, that is subservience! And your argument that homosexuals are being "intolerant" by wanting to get married is both ironic and moronic for this reason.
Are you saying that my religion, beliefs and faith don't matter if it means a homosexual can't get married? I *am* tolerant of homosexuals insofar as they can do whatever they want, *until* they start demanding laws and other people have to accept their way of life. No other group of people that I can think of off hand do that due to a personal choice they have made. People have to accept the consequences of their choices. (The premise here obviously being that homosexuality is a choice.) I don't hate homosexuals but I find them intolerant of people who they view as blocking their agenda of pushing homosexuality onto society by forcing society to make laws that cater to them. It is hypocritical on their part. Their agenda is blocked because most people don't want laws catering to the homosexuals, which is how the laws that try to get passed are viewed, rather than being viewed as a way to make homosexuals equal to heterosexuals.
At a fundamental level, both groups of people are human and the U.S. treats people, by law, equally at the fundamental level as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Barring things like Affirmative Action, people of one race are no longer treated better than people of another race and the same goes for gender and religion. That is because we are now viewed as human beings fundamentally. Obviously there will always be local bias but the U.S. treats all humans the same. Sexual preferences should not get special treatment. If they should get special treatment, why limit those preferences to homosexuals? Heterosexuals are people to and so are bisexuals and transgenders. Liberals want everyone to be all inclusive, remember!
Many religions, maybe even all of them, consider homosexuality to be immoral. And I'm sure some people have voted against gay marriage and didn't do so based on religious beliefs. You obviously have issues with religion in general so you won't even consider any argument that has religious underpinnings. Thanks for *your* tolerance and open-mindedness. Homosexuals aren't being intolerant by wanting to get married. They are being intolerant by pushing judges and the courts to overturn the results of voters going to the ballot boxes. And marriage *is* is a religious institution. Religious foundations shouldn't be modified so that homosexuals can get what they want on a whim because of personal decisions. There is civil unions to accommodate them. Changing religion for the sake of a minority is allowing religion to be subservient to people and that isn't how things work.
But isn't the state supposed to be separate from the church? How can there be any non-religious argument against gay marriage?
Well I don't believe "separation of church and state" implies that the citizens are not allowed to have a religion be visible in the government. The government is not allowed to force a citizen to become a member of any particular religion or rule based on a religion. If you want *that* you can go to Iran or if you had a time machine you can go to 18th century England, which is exactly the situation that the Founding Fathers did not want to duplicate. Anything short of that that someone complains about with respect to the government doing something that "violates" that "separation" is just simply a knee jerk reaction in an effort to exercise their prejudice toward anything religious.
By the way, gays can have civil unions, which by definition have no religious foundation to them. But marriage is a religious institution (not even specific to Christianity) and all religions are against homosexuality. You want the government to separate church and state with respect to gay marriage? We already have that: civil unions.
And why should homosexual bow down to the prejudice of heterosexual majority any more than black people should bow down to the prejudices of the white majority?
Um, heterosexuals are free to believe whatever they want. Why do homosexuals believe they must be accepted by everyone? Do you see murderers, rapists, and robbers trying to make their life goal to be accepted by everyone in society? They are going to find bias against them as they go back into the work force. Does that mean they are going to rise up in numbers and start picketing to get society to accept them as humans again? I have yet to see that. They don't have an agenda. They just want their life back (for those who are not repeat offenders). So why do homosexuals have an agenda to ensure they get accepted? Why should I change my belief system to accept homosexuals? I don't hate them mind you. I just don't agree with their lifestyle. I don't impose mine onto them so they shouldn't try to force me to accept their lifestyle. If you believe they have a choice in the lifestyle they choose then you also believe that they should reap the benefits and accept the consequences of that lifestyle. If you believe they are born that way then that is another whole issue altogether. Blacks are born black. There is nothing wrong with that and obviously they can't help their heritage; nor should they feel they have to. Therefore they *should* be equal to all other people. I think it is offensive to any race to compare homosexuals to them and their "fight" for acceptance because I feel homosexuals choose to be the way they are just as bisexuals choose to pick and choose on a whim whether they are going to date a male or female any given month.
Put another way, some people do have prejudice against non-white races because they are non-white. That is just plain prejudice in my opinion. The "prejudice" against gays that you speak of is faith-based. Does that mean we should make religion illegal? No. Again, the "prejudice" is that people of faith do not accept homosexuality and believe it is immoral. They feel the same way about murderers but you don't see murderers up in arms about it. Again I ask, why do the homosexuals fight so hard for acceptance? Why can't they accept that not everyone is going to agree with their lifestyle? Under the premise that they should live with the consequences of their decisions, they shouldn't demand that they get special treatment nor should they feel they are being treated less fairly than heterosexuals. Again, marriage is a religious institution and all religions are against homosexuality. So why should entire religious foundations have to be modified in order to make homosexuals happy due to their own personal decisions?
And regarding your sig.. What is so bad about universal healthcare exactl
In regards to the "majority of people" wanting drugs to be illegal - when you create a positive feedback loop of turning drug users into criminals it makes it relatively difficult to break the cycle. The majority of people in this country are against gay marriage as well: does this mean that gay marriage should be illegal?
Many laws are the result of societal standards and morals imposed hundreds of years ago (and reflect the religious underpinnings of the United States). In many states adultery is still on the books as being illegal but as societal standards and morals are lowered and because there are bigger criminals to go after the police just don't pay attention to adulterers anymore. The vast majority of the population is against murder (should it be legalized despite majority rule?). Not killing someone is also one of the Ten Commandments; so is not stealing. The point being that some laws are a result of the standards and morals that the U.S. society possesses and imposes on themselves based on the Christian faith. So, going back to your original question, for the very reasons I laid out above, yes, gay marriage should be illegal. The majority of people have already voted in many states to not legalize gay marriage. Most of those who voted against legalizing it did so based on their beliefs and faith. Homosexuals complain heterosexuals are not tolerant but homosexuals believe they should get their way and do not want to tolerate the decisions and beliefs of heterosexuals.
There is a reason that the United States is a Republic and not a pure democracy. In the words of Alexander Hamilton - the masses are asses. Irrational fears often overcome rational deduction. All you have to do is look at segregation, Japanese internment camps, and the Salem Witch Trials to realize that majority rule is not always the right way to go about deciding things in emotionally charged and sensitive matters.
Majority rule is not always the right way to go however in most cases it is. Maybe you should do homework to find out all the different situations in which majority rule *was* the right way to go instead of choosing only 3 examples of when majority rule did not make sense. More often than not the majority knows what is best. People believe in the power of numbers and having others who share your beliefs provides a support mechanism. That is just one method in which the citizens of the United States can unite despite certain minority groups wanting to tear them apart to satisfy their own agendas.
However the US government will gladly pass laws that expand its limits and/or size. It all comes down to the government being corrupt in many areas, down to specific members of Congress. Corporations can lobby Congressmen easier and more effectively than individual citizens. Congressmen will listen to the corporations more than the citizens who voted them into office.
What better way to weed out possible terrorist than strip searching everyone who does not prominently display a $0.10 pewter cross. BRILLIANT!
Racial profiling would be better than what we have now. Instead of searching grandmothers and forcing everyone to take off their shoes they should be targeting those people who we already know have been prone to be the type to take down planes. Cops do it all the time for local investigations and the FBI does it for interstate crime. Why are we not allowed to do it, or why are some people against doing it, for terrorism?
One could think it is the holidays,
Think about what that sentence states and answer me 2 things: 1) Does it even make any sense? and 2) What does it mean? I ask because "it is the holidays" does not make sense to me and I don't know what it means, not to mention it sounds stupid. What holidays? How can "it" be more than one holiday at the same time? Why is the non-sense term only used in December? A holiday is a specific day; not like a season that lasts for weeks. When is the proper time to start using the term "holidays" and when should I stop using the term "holidays"? Should I only do it to avoid using the term Christmas? What is the "holidays" etiquette?