As long as the religious right holds sway in the Republican party, no self-respecting gay person will vote republican.
As I already mentioned, they can and do. That is, they are not partisans, they vote based on their issues. Your stereotyping all gay people as ignorant party loyalists is demonstrably false and a blatant insult to their intelligence. They have already demonstrated political savvy far beyond your myopic view of them.
If you're going to go back 60 years to find racist quotes from dead Republicans in order to claim the Republican party hates blacks, you might as well go back 70 years to find quotes from Democrats that practically rioted to keep the blacks they hated from attending their white schools. This type of marketing of party politics is certainly effective, but inaccurate, and will likely fail in the long term. You can't keep an entire race in check solely by propaganda - I know that the Democrats are also working to keep them ignorant as well, but eventually enough will wake up and realize that they are being treated like chattel.
Do you think it is rational for black people to vote for a party that actively hates them
No, I don't, and many of them are turning away from the Democratic party for that very reason. Most are still buying the kind of bullshit you are spouting, though, even as their poverty gets worse with every election that they support them.
will tell you immediately why women and gays vote for any party they are not a part of.
I suggest you check again. I'm not familiar with how women feel about which party their "lady parts" should choose (invoking fear of the other party helps, of course, regardless of the basis), but it is well-understood that LGBT voters do NOT vote along party lines - they are issue voters and vote based on their issues. Period. They pay no attention to party, and that is precisely WHY they are so politically influential even though they are such a small voting bloc. Partisan voters never have that kind of influence, because they vote for "their" party, no matter how they are treated by it.
If black people voted like the LGBT folks, they would be a force to be reckoned with. Politicians would have to pay attention to them, and get focused on their issues. But it's not like that - they have all been fooled into continuing to support a single party, no matter how bad their situation gets. That means Democrats ignore their issues, because they will get their vote anyway, and Republicans ignore their issues, because they won't get their vote no matter what.
Tax payers pay for a large part of these universities, that's what makes them public universities. If you don't like the restrictions that come with that, attend a fully privately funded university; there are enough of them around, and they can adopt whatever policies they like.
That's simply a better argument for allowing unfettered free speech. Since it's government funded, they are barred from restricting free speech of any kind.
My assertion is that there is are reasons why blacks, gays and women are not voting for conservative candidates
Free phones? Or simply buy-in to the propaganda that Democrats will help them, even though 40 years of liberal policies have made them worse off? Or have they now been thoroughly convinced by the left's rhetoric that they are inferior and will require government help?
As for for the original poster's question on law, I doubt there is any requirement, though if you challenge them in court, it would have to be revealed, or they have no evidence.
But of course it will never go to court, because signing up for their service requires that you agree to their TOS, which includes "binding and final" 3rd-party arbitration of all disputes.
But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?
"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
These examples are all still giving to charity where the giver gets to decide the worth of the recipient. It's easy to give blood when they know it will go to someone somewhat like them. They get to choose which homeless guys to give to. They get to choose to give money to non-religious charities that are aligned politically with themselves. Sure, they might give more. But that giving doesn't help people who they don't like, and that's the problem.
That's not a problem, it's why it works better. Because forcing people to deal with a faceless and dispassionate bureaucracy when they need help means people often don't get the help they need, and many people abuse the system that don't need the help at all.
I guess this is what happens when your backward, anti-freedom police state party systematically alienates all the programmers and sysadmins and hackers, all the good techs and IT personnel who otherwise might have wanted to help you.
I guess it's "Beta" (like pretty much everything Google puts out)? In my district, it lists the mayoral race, but includes only the incumbent, not the challenger. It also fails to include the Independent candidate for the Congressional district, and completely excludes the proposed Constitutional amendments.
The amendments are not only arguably the most important items on the ballot this year, but also the ones voters are in most need of being educated about.
Your State laws do not apply to actions taken by Federal law enforcement officers in the performance of a federal investigation.
Federal officers follow federal law. State protections only apply to State actions, not Federal actions.
That would be true in some systems, but not in a republic. The US Constitution does NOT grant police powers to the federal government, that is reserved to the states. Therefore, within state territory, even Federal officers must comply with state and local laws and constitutions.
False equivalency. The Obama / Holder justice department has cracked down on pot 4 times as hard as Bush ever did, even conducting twice as many raids on medical marijuana facilities in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And this from the President that promised (as a candidate) to leave them alone.
The difference is with Obama it's the government/public agencies doing this, while under Romney it'll be private sector doing it and billing anyone who wants to know what they saw.
Well, there goes that "difference". You apparently haven't seen Obama's latest Executive Order.
Remember, folks, it's a "public-private partnership"; we don't call it fascism anymore!
The next step is to build a refinery right there in orbit, and mine some asteroids for raw materials. Or some Jupiter moons, even better, since they are loaded with hydrocarbons. That is where the real savings would be, since you're not paying to blast all that fuel into space.
I always find it amusing when serious Randian/"libertarian"/extreme rightwing free market cheerleaders are surprised that some of their ideas disgust people.
Indeed. They should have learned by now the difficulty of countering modern school indoctrination and media manipulation in the ignorant masses, especially with the amount of bread and circuses being thrown at them.
Tuna generally do not eat feces, but tilapia do, at least in the wild. It's just what they eat. Tilapia raised on fish farms are actually fed an unnatural diet of grain. Same thing is done with catfish, which are also bottom-feeders and eat feces and detritus in the wild, but eat grain on fish farms (that's why farm-raised catfish generally tastes better.)
I love how the moderators freak out when they can't find that "-1 Criticizes my ideology" mod so they just pick "Offtopic" or "Overrated" instead (when the post is neither).
The problem is how to kill off more than 95% of the current population and how are we going to keep any sort of high tech going with so few people. I'm sure the Agenda 21 folks have it figured out, eh?
Yes, it appears they plan to use mandated vaccinations.
"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
I hate to break it to you, but they are implementing water restrictions all over the place, and not only in places where there are shortages. They probably have plans to do it in your area, too. If you don't believe me, check your local city or county for their "comprehensive plan". Also note that the board they are planning to create that will have control over your water can also charge you for water you draw from a well on your own land, can take property through imminent domain, and are not accountable to any voters because they are not elected.
Some of us pull water out of the very ground we stand on!
And soon you will be required to buy a meter and pay for every drop of water you take out of your own ground. They're already doing it in Washington state. Which is a weird place to start, because Washington is wet as crap all year long.
Except water quotas aren't about conserving water, it's about controlling the populace. If it was, they wouldn't be working on water quotas in places with plenty of potable water, and they are doing that now. Where I live, they now charge $50 a month for ACCESS to water, plus usage, plus sewer. And I live 4 blocks from a pretty good-sized river.
Much better than the original story, which of course is completely implausible in the Agenda 21 vision, since only the elites will have PERSONAL cars, and it will be completely impractical to live so far from work that you need one to get there. If your work is in a distant Human Habitation hub, just apply to the Planning Board for an apartment there.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the religious right holds sway in the Republican party, no self-respecting gay person will vote republican.
As I already mentioned, they can and do. That is, they are not partisans, they vote based on their issues. Your stereotyping all gay people as ignorant party loyalists is demonstrably false and a blatant insult to their intelligence. They have already demonstrated political savvy far beyond your myopic view of them.
If you're going to go back 60 years to find racist quotes from dead Republicans in order to claim the Republican party hates blacks, you might as well go back 70 years to find quotes from Democrats that practically rioted to keep the blacks they hated from attending their white schools. This type of marketing of party politics is certainly effective, but inaccurate, and will likely fail in the long term. You can't keep an entire race in check solely by propaganda - I know that the Democrats are also working to keep them ignorant as well, but eventually enough will wake up and realize that they are being treated like chattel.
Do you think it is rational for black people to vote for a party that actively hates them
No, I don't, and many of them are turning away from the Democratic party for that very reason. Most are still buying the kind of bullshit you are spouting, though, even as their poverty gets worse with every election that they support them.
will tell you immediately why women and gays vote for any party they are not a part of.
I suggest you check again. I'm not familiar with how women feel about which party their "lady parts" should choose (invoking fear of the other party helps, of course, regardless of the basis), but it is well-understood that LGBT voters do NOT vote along party lines - they are issue voters and vote based on their issues. Period. They pay no attention to party, and that is precisely WHY they are so politically influential even though they are such a small voting bloc. Partisan voters never have that kind of influence, because they vote for "their" party, no matter how they are treated by it.
If black people voted like the LGBT folks, they would be a force to be reckoned with. Politicians would have to pay attention to them, and get focused on their issues. But it's not like that - they have all been fooled into continuing to support a single party, no matter how bad their situation gets. That means Democrats ignore their issues, because they will get their vote anyway, and Republicans ignore their issues, because they won't get their vote no matter what.
Tax payers pay for a large part of these universities, that's what makes them public universities. If you don't like the restrictions that come with that, attend a fully privately funded university; there are enough of them around, and they can adopt whatever policies they like.
That's simply a better argument for allowing unfettered free speech. Since it's government funded, they are barred from restricting free speech of any kind.
My assertion is that there is are reasons why blacks, gays and women are not voting for conservative candidates
Free phones? Or simply buy-in to the propaganda that Democrats will help them, even though 40 years of liberal policies have made them worse off? Or have they now been thoroughly convinced by the left's rhetoric that they are inferior and will require government help?
As for for the original poster's question on law, I doubt there is any requirement, though if you challenge them in court, it would have to be revealed, or they have no evidence.
But of course it will never go to court, because signing up for their service requires that you agree to their TOS, which includes "binding and final" 3rd-party arbitration of all disputes.
Can someone please tell me where this "dog whistle bigot" codebook is? I really want to know about those coded messages.
49% equals a "base" of bigots (who are in fact largely white fundies)
Well no wonder there are so many racial fights.
But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?
"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
These examples are all still giving to charity where the giver gets to decide the worth of the recipient. It's easy to give blood when they know it will go to someone somewhat like them. They get to choose which homeless guys to give to. They get to choose to give money to non-religious charities that are aligned politically with themselves. Sure, they might give more. But that giving doesn't help people who they don't like, and that's the problem.
That's not a problem, it's why it works better. Because forcing people to deal with a faceless and dispassionate bureaucracy when they need help means people often don't get the help they need, and many people abuse the system that don't need the help at all.
That's not capitalism, it's corporatism. And the "banking system" hasn't existed in a free market since 1913.
Fix your damned GOP and quit trying so hard to put the blame for your failings on those GD liberals.
The rest of your hateful rhetoric is disgusting, but this point is dead-on. There are those of us trying to do just that.
I guess this is what happens when your backward, anti-freedom police state party systematically alienates all the programmers and sysadmins and hackers, all the good techs and IT personnel who otherwise might have wanted to help you.
The Republicrats? The Democans?
I guess it's "Beta" (like pretty much everything Google puts out)? In my district, it lists the mayoral race, but includes only the incumbent, not the challenger. It also fails to include the Independent candidate for the Congressional district, and completely excludes the proposed Constitutional amendments.
The amendments are not only arguably the most important items on the ballot this year, but also the ones voters are in most need of being educated about.
Your State laws do not apply to actions taken by Federal law enforcement officers in the performance of a federal investigation.
Federal officers follow federal law. State protections only apply to State actions, not Federal actions.
That would be true in some systems, but not in a republic. The US Constitution does NOT grant police powers to the federal government, that is reserved to the states. Therefore, within state territory, even Federal officers must comply with state and local laws and constitutions.
False equivalency. The Obama / Holder justice department has cracked down on pot 4 times as hard as Bush ever did, even conducting twice as many raids on medical marijuana facilities in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And this from the President that promised (as a candidate) to leave them alone.
Good effort, but I'm afraid it's going to go right over the head of the apologists.
The difference is with Obama it's the government/public agencies doing this, while under Romney it'll be private sector doing it and billing anyone who wants to know what they saw.
Well, there goes that "difference". You apparently haven't seen Obama's latest Executive Order.
Remember, folks, it's a "public-private partnership"; we don't call it fascism anymore!
The next step is to build a refinery right there in orbit, and mine some asteroids for raw materials. Or some Jupiter moons, even better, since they are loaded with hydrocarbons. That is where the real savings would be, since you're not paying to blast all that fuel into space.
The FBI is not conducting surveillance today, which is why you don't see HotWorkoutPants. See you next week.
That's not it. It always shows up here as "FBI surveillance Van #27" (although I do sometimes see #33).
I always find it amusing when serious Randian/"libertarian"/extreme rightwing free market cheerleaders are surprised that some of their ideas disgust people.
Indeed. They should have learned by now the difficulty of countering modern school indoctrination and media manipulation in the ignorant masses, especially with the amount of bread and circuses being thrown at them.
Tuna generally do not eat feces, but tilapia do, at least in the wild. It's just what they eat. Tilapia raised on fish farms are actually fed an unnatural diet of grain. Same thing is done with catfish, which are also bottom-feeders and eat feces and detritus in the wild, but eat grain on fish farms (that's why farm-raised catfish generally tastes better.)
I love how the moderators freak out when they can't find that "-1 Criticizes my ideology" mod so they just pick "Offtopic" or "Overrated" instead (when the post is neither).
The problem is how to kill off more than 95% of the current population and how are we going to keep any sort of high tech going with so few people. I'm sure the Agenda 21 folks have it figured out, eh?
Yes, it appears they plan to use mandated vaccinations.
-- Bill Gates
I hate to break it to you, but they are implementing water restrictions all over the place, and not only in places where there are shortages. They probably have plans to do it in your area, too. If you don't believe me, check your local city or county for their "comprehensive plan". Also note that the board they are planning to create that will have control over your water can also charge you for water you draw from a well on your own land, can take property through imminent domain, and are not accountable to any voters because they are not elected.
Some of us pull water out of the very ground we stand on!
And soon you will be required to buy a meter and pay for every drop of water you take out of your own ground. They're already doing it in Washington state. Which is a weird place to start, because Washington is wet as crap all year long.
Except water quotas aren't about conserving water, it's about controlling the populace. If it was, they wouldn't be working on water quotas in places with plenty of potable water, and they are doing that now. Where I live, they now charge $50 a month for ACCESS to water, plus usage, plus sewer. And I live 4 blocks from a pretty good-sized river.
Much better than the original story, which of course is completely implausible in the Agenda 21 vision, since only the elites will have PERSONAL cars, and it will be completely impractical to live so far from work that you need one to get there. If your work is in a distant Human Habitation hub, just apply to the Planning Board for an apartment there.