Equally I should have a right to not be poisoned by pollution from cars and factories
Yes you do, and you're attempting to create a false dilema. This is why polution laws exist. Some chemicals [most] have a safety threshold. PS: Get rid of the internal combustion engine as soon as possible.
not to have 5 years or more knocked off my lifespan by working,
don't know where you pulled that from
not to have my brain rotted by listening to inane conversations on buses etc etc etc.
wrong - you do not have that right, listening to "inane conservation" does not negatively effect you in any way that violates your rights
Life however doesn't work like that, you're perfectly free to protect yourself from all these things by living in solitude in the countryside or by not frequenting places where people are smoking but at the end of the day if YOU don't want to inhale secondary cigarette smoke then YOU should go somewhere else. It's not exposure against your will if you have the choice to remove yourself from the exposure and choose not to do so.
WRONG - If I have to chagne my lifestyle to accomdoate the habits of others my rights are violated. Go get an education in what the difference between "rights" and "license" are my poorly misinformen parroter of old-tired overused pathetically weak arguments.
Making the sounds of the english language is motor memory, but the meaning conveyed with strings of those sounds with appropriate pauses is factual memory
And that process is not necessarily going to be more comfortable just because you ate tofu all the time and never passed up an opportunity to whine about someone smoking a cigarette 50 feet away from you.
I'm going to have to take exception to this statement. I personally consider tofu unhealthy due to being inedible:D (as one chinese or japenese emporer did in the past). However ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) contains multiple toxic and carcinogenic substances with no known safety threshold. This means that any exposure against your will is a violation of your rights, and has a small - but accumulative - detrimental effect to your health.
It is not "whining" to demand that our right to live healthy is respected. If you want to consume tobacco products chew them is well withing your rights since you are only affecting your health, no matter how disgusting parts of the population view it (myself included).
The fight against cigarettes is not about "we find this disgusting get away from us" as some people attempt to frame it, but is about rights. Respect the rights of others to not be poisoned by you and they will respect your right to poison yourself, and only yourself, as you see fit.
And are you so ignorant that you don't realize most black people are practicing Christians who are against abortion and homosexuality?
Being "against" them and being "against someone's right to have one/be one" are two completely seperate things in the minds of MANY MANY people. There are many democrats who support choice but don't personally support abortion. I personally support choice fully and think it's the only responsible option in certain situations; but i believe that we should to a better job in preventing those situations through comprehensive sex education.
Our national defense and national security forces were not "gutted" under clinton as you assert - they were drawn down from wartime (gulf war I) levels and cold war levels to more piece time levels. MANY [if not most] of the cuts were made at the request of the pentagon because they were receiving funds they weren't spending. Furthermore the "the more money we give to defense the better it'll be" attitude is simply wrong. Our defense spending is woefully uneffecient to the point of almost being criminal. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex and it's ability to bilk the public coffers and to manipulate public opinion and we IGNORED HIM. Defense spending needs to be made VASTLY VASTLY more efficient and then we can reduce it.
My brother served in the army under Clinton. He had no complaints. Oh and there was this entire bombing of the World Trade Center in clintons first year, what happen to those peopel? oh right...they're in JAIL because we CAUGHT THEM.
The assertion that Clinton "gutted" the military is PURE BS.
Please cite an example of racism in the Republican party. Stromm Thurmond, an UNREPENTANT racist. Robert Byrd left the KKK long ago and has since stopped being a racist.
A) How is staunch defense of a woman's bodily sovereignty and therefore abortion "exploitation of the black vote" B) How is supporting EQUAL RIGHTS for homosexuals "exploitation of the black vote" C) Democrats are not against "religious expression", they're against mingling government and religion, which is expressly forbidden by the First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Now watch out - you may learn that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc have been lying to you:
I, and no othe democrat who is taken seriously by other democrats, think you shouldn't be allowed to go worship whatever deit(y/ies) you want to on your own time and your own dollar. However it is expressly forbidden for government to promot religion A over religion B, religion over non-religion, non-religion over religion, etc. Government must remain neutral.
That means a teacher cannot lead students in prayer "no school prayer", however if a student wishes to spontaneously pray on their own they can do so in school if they are not disruptive (ie loud) - and we democrats will defend their right to do so agaisnt certain principles who go to far into being the PC-police.
That means you cannot have the Ten Commandments posted on government property (a myriad of postings from different religions in one spot doesn't help this - how do you represent non-religious people who therefore have no document)
That means laws cannot be passed just for religious reasons.
That means the government cannot give money to religious groups (it is impossible to do so equally even if the humans involved in allocating the funds weren't inherently biased individuals)
That mans "Intelligent Design" doesn't belong in science class since it isn't science - it belongs in study of world religions, and that "study of world religions" class cannot be a sham that is only teaching ID (like that one school in california tried to pull)
I happen to think that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, which is a religious institution, and should instead offer "social partnership" licenses to basically any pair of cohabiting adults for tax and social purposes.
I disagree with your assertion that "democrats" could never vote for a "republican" simply because they're a republican. I am a registered democrat, and I often think some of the things my party does are moronic [most of their attempts at gun control are not only ineffective they're just plain stupid is a prime example]. I could vote for a republican if said republican showed respect for the constitution, minorities (racial and religious), had a well thought out platform, etc. A republican i could vote for would be viciously attacked by their own party for being "RINO" as said republican would also have to be pro-choice, respectful of the 1st and 4th ammendments, put good economics ahead of loyalty to reaganomics [aka "trickle down"/"supply side" - a proven failure], etc.
-----------------------
I do not doubt that the study is valid for certain segments of all politicial persuations - however i point out that this studies scope is much more limited than people are trying to apply it to - they were shown videobites that contradicted each other and measured reaction to that, they didn't give us numbers on what proportion of each group did this because it is certainly not 100%, they did not test this in relation to things other than candidate-reaction. This study has a much more limited scope that peolpe are trying to give it.
If the economy has 5% unemployment under a Democratic president, the economy is doing well. If it has 5% unemployment under a Republican president, it is doing poorly.
A) government-measured unemployment B) Maybe you haven't been paying attention but between those two presidencies the government has changed how it figures the unemployment rate to artificially shrink the number
To be precise China is an authoritarian state with a mixed command ecomony-free market economy trending further tword a command economy resembling communism.
Earth to Space Cadet 029 - 'new media' editions of things traditionally were for generating new sales to new customers not return customers getting a new media, that's just a bonus
Your error is claiming that the numbers are "pulled out of your ass" when it comes to the astronomers, physisics and biologists that calculated what i cited.
There is no such thing as "ludacrously improbable" when it comes to cosmology - real world probabilities are tried in parallel not in serial.
They worked out the probabilities for life as we know it occuring randomly - they were small per trial however you must apply the Law of Extremely Large Numbers - ie a huge ammount of trials. Turns out the number of stars likely to have planets in the habital zone overwhelmed the probability by about 10,000 planets likely to have life of some form.
Don't try to fathom real world probabilities in terms of serial trials of flipping a coin.
It always has been, always will be, and the constitution was written so that it would be: unconstitutional for any part of the US government to promote religion.
"The Government of the United States is in no way based upon the Christian Religion" - Treaty with Tripoli (passed unopposed in the US Senate with that language)
He also said it doesn't belong in science class - it's fine in comparative religion.
Oh there won't be an appeal - the parents are happy with the decision, and the NEW SCHOOL BOARD is too - the legal counsel for the school board cannot appeal without their client's consent and who their client is changed - 8 of 9 members were up for reelection last month, they all got canned and replaced with people who said ID doesn't belong in science class (but it's fine in comparative religion)
Slashdot Mirror
Equally I should have a right to not be poisoned by pollution from cars and factories
Yes you do, and you're attempting to create a false dilema. This is why polution laws exist. Some chemicals [most] have a safety threshold. PS: Get rid of the internal combustion engine as soon as possible.
not to have 5 years or more knocked off my lifespan by working,
don't know where you pulled that from
not to have my brain rotted by listening to inane conversations on buses etc etc etc.
wrong - you do not have that right, listening to "inane conservation" does not negatively effect you in any way that violates your rights
Life however doesn't work like that, you're perfectly free to protect yourself from all these things by living in solitude in the countryside or by not frequenting places where people are smoking but at the end of the day if YOU don't want to inhale secondary cigarette smoke then YOU should go somewhere else. It's not exposure against your will if you have the choice to remove yourself from the exposure and choose not to do so.
WRONG - If I have to chagne my lifestyle to accomdoate the habits of others my rights are violated. Go get an education in what the difference between "rights" and "license" are my poorly misinformen parroter of old-tired overused pathetically weak arguments.
Making the sounds of the english language is motor memory, but the meaning conveyed with strings of those sounds with appropriate pauses is factual memory
And that process is not necessarily going to be more comfortable just because you ate tofu all the time and never passed up an opportunity to whine about someone smoking a cigarette 50 feet away from you.
:D (as one chinese or japenese emporer did in the past). However ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) contains multiple toxic and carcinogenic substances with no known safety threshold. This means that any exposure against your will is a violation of your rights, and has a small - but accumulative - detrimental effect to your health.
I'm going to have to take exception to this statement. I personally consider tofu unhealthy due to being inedible
It is not "whining" to demand that our right to live healthy is respected. If you want to consume tobacco products chew them is well withing your rights since you are only affecting your health, no matter how disgusting parts of the population view it (myself included).
The fight against cigarettes is not about "we find this disgusting get away from us" as some people attempt to frame it, but is about rights. Respect the rights of others to not be poisoned by you and they will respect your right to poison yourself, and only yourself, as you see fit.
And are you so ignorant that you don't realize most black people are practicing Christians who are against abortion and homosexuality?
.they're in JAIL because we CAUGHT THEM.
Being "against" them and being "against someone's right to have one/be one" are two completely seperate things in the minds of MANY MANY people. There are many democrats who support choice but don't personally support abortion. I personally support choice fully and think it's the only responsible option in certain situations; but i believe that we should to a better job in preventing those situations through comprehensive sex education.
Our national defense and national security forces were not "gutted" under clinton as you assert - they were drawn down from wartime (gulf war I) levels and cold war levels to more piece time levels. MANY [if not most] of the cuts were made at the request of the pentagon because they were receiving funds they weren't spending. Furthermore the "the more money we give to defense the better it'll be" attitude is simply wrong. Our defense spending is woefully uneffecient to the point of almost being criminal. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex and it's ability to bilk the public coffers and to manipulate public opinion and we IGNORED HIM. Defense spending needs to be made VASTLY VASTLY more efficient and then we can reduce it.
My brother served in the army under Clinton. He had no complaints. Oh and there was this entire bombing of the World Trade Center in clintons first year, what happen to those peopel? oh right..
The assertion that Clinton "gutted" the military is PURE BS.
Please cite an example of racism in the Republican party.
Stromm Thurmond, an UNREPENTANT racist. Robert Byrd left the KKK long ago and has since stopped being a racist.
A) How is staunch defense of a woman's bodily sovereignty and therefore abortion "exploitation of the black vote"
B) How is supporting EQUAL RIGHTS for homosexuals "exploitation of the black vote"
C) Democrats are not against "religious expression", they're against mingling government and religion, which is expressly forbidden by the First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Now watch out - you may learn that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc have been lying to you:
I, and no othe democrat who is taken seriously by other democrats, think you shouldn't be allowed to go worship whatever deit(y/ies) you want to on your own time and your own dollar. However it is expressly forbidden for government to promot religion A over religion B, religion over non-religion, non-religion over religion, etc. Government must remain neutral.
That means a teacher cannot lead students in prayer "no school prayer", however if a student wishes to spontaneously pray on their own they can do so in school if they are not disruptive (ie loud) - and we democrats will defend their right to do so agaisnt certain principles who go to far into being the PC-police.
That means you cannot have the Ten Commandments posted on government property (a myriad of postings from different religions in one spot doesn't help this - how do you represent non-religious people who therefore have no document)
That means laws cannot be passed just for religious reasons.
That means the government cannot give money to religious groups (it is impossible to do so equally even if the humans involved in allocating the funds weren't inherently biased individuals)
That mans "Intelligent Design" doesn't belong in science class since it isn't science - it belongs in study of world religions, and that "study of world religions" class cannot be a sham that is only teaching ID (like that one school in california tried to pull)
As for the success of reagan's economic policies i need only present the following
http://www.democrats08.com/media/us_deficit0.gif
I happen to think that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, which is a religious institution, and should instead offer "social partnership" licenses to basically any pair of cohabiting adults for tax and social purposes.
couldn't agree more
I disagree with your assertion that "democrats" could never vote for a "republican" simply because they're a republican. I am a registered democrat, and I often think some of the things my party does are moronic [most of their attempts at gun control are not only ineffective they're just plain stupid is a prime example]. I could vote for a republican if said republican showed respect for the constitution, minorities (racial and religious), had a well thought out platform, etc. A republican i could vote for would be viciously attacked by their own party for being "RINO" as said republican would also have to be pro-choice, respectful of the 1st and 4th ammendments, put good economics ahead of loyalty to reaganomics [aka "trickle down"/"supply side" - a proven failure], etc.
-----------------------
I do not doubt that the study is valid for certain segments of all politicial persuations - however i point out that this studies scope is much more limited than people are trying to apply it to - they were shown videobites that contradicted each other and measured reaction to that, they didn't give us numbers on what proportion of each group did this because it is certainly not 100%, they did not test this in relation to things other than candidate-reaction. This study has a much more limited scope that peolpe are trying to give it.
If the economy has 5% unemployment under a Democratic president, the economy is doing well. If it has 5% unemployment under a Republican president, it is doing poorly.
A) government-measured unemployment
B) Maybe you haven't been paying attention but between those two presidencies the government has changed how it figures the unemployment rate to artificially shrink the number
To be precise China is an authoritarian state with a mixed command ecomony-free market economy trending further tword a command economy resembling communism.
So you're saying they're what King George and his unmerry(wo)men are trying to turn america into :D
yes yes i know -10 flamebait
Earth to Space Cadet 029 - 'new media' editions of things traditionally were for generating new sales to new customers not return customers getting a new media, that's just a bonus
yum update -Y
go back to working
Refreshing a web page is a crime?
Doohan was CANADIAN
Your error is claiming that the numbers are "pulled out of your ass" when it comes to the astronomers, physisics and biologists that calculated what i cited.
There is no such thing as "ludacrously improbable" when it comes to cosmology - real world probabilities are tried in parallel not in serial.
They worked out the probabilities for life as we know it occuring randomly - they were small per trial however you must apply the Law of Extremely Large Numbers - ie a huge ammount of trials. Turns out the number of stars likely to have planets in the habital zone overwhelmed the probability by about 10,000 planets likely to have life of some form.
Don't try to fathom real world probabilities in terms of serial trials of flipping a coin.
Flat tax only looks fair until you apply Dimishing Returns and start calculating what dollars are actually worth to a person at income level.
"Fair Tax" is never fair.
Therefore buy-per-episode would drive quality up to attract market share.
My highschool had comparative religion as part of World Humanities (senior english for most students).
I only graduated from said HS in 2002
It always has been, always will be, and the constitution was written so that it would be: unconstitutional for any part of the US government to promote religion.
"The Government of the United States is in no way based upon the Christian Religion" - Treaty with Tripoli (passed unopposed in the US Senate with that language)
He also said it doesn't belong in science class - it's fine in comparative religion.
Oh there won't be an appeal - the parents are happy with the decision, and the NEW SCHOOL BOARD is too - the legal counsel for the school board cannot appeal without their client's consent and who their client is changed - 8 of 9 members were up for reelection last month, they all got canned and replaced with people who said ID doesn't belong in science class (but it's fine in comparative religion)
Establishment and Free Exercise clauses
Put it in comparative religion where it belongs!
Riiight.. i once dated a girl i worked with.
All the bosses knew we were dating, and we were often found off task out of our area when we had little or nothing to do - they didn't farking care.
ignore my previous comment.. i misread your signature
(Yes this is off topic - go ahead and mod me as such if you want)
Wow dude, noticing your sig.. i hope that's sarcasm because otherwise you are one seriously seriously misinformed individuals.