If your cell phone is sitting on the dash of your two and a half ton SUV and you measure your fuel consumption in units of gallons/mile, you are proabably a republican.
Please, more Clinton soccer moms drive SUV's than anyone else. They need it to take their kid and her friends to soccer..
If your cell phone is in your jacket pocket and you are pretending it is a gun while you hold up a liquer store because you lost your factory job, you are proably a democrat.
Thats just silly we all know democrats dont work thats why youre all for free drugs and welfare;p
If you don't have a cell phone because you don't want to feed a huge greedy corporate oligopoly you are a Nader supporter.
I got nothin'
If your cell phone is inserted in your boyfriends ass, you are either a Barney Frank supporter, a log cabin republican, or possibly just a seriously disturbed individual.
or you could be This Guy trying to be something he is not...
Which is why giving Halliburton no-bid contracts is ridiculous.
For what it is worth I used to work as a civi in the Corps of Engineers (NYPA District). Basically all that was left in the Buffalo office was a PM outfit that contracted out dredging of rivers and outlets. For example every other year we did the mouth on the Genesee (Rochester NY) I think the last time I did it was 1999, so I can tell you its done in *about* june 2001, 2003, 2005,....now knowing all of this and having complete access to the project history of that site how long do you suppose the bidding process goes? It was a six month process and many times the estimates of material is off so there are differing site conditions to negotiate during a contract (which can stop a job dead). Contrast this to Iraq we have a huge and undefined scope of work, in an area we have little site knowledge of how long and how accurate do you think that bidding process would go?
Okay. That changes the word "indefensible" in my first statement how?
Hey so long as you were having a coniption fit about it in 1998 I can agree with that, but as a sign I once saw so aptly pointed out... say no to war, unless there is a democrat in the whitehouie..
Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, possibly more in the nine tenths of the country that are unexplored, more than ten times the amount in the ANWR.
sigh... all of which is compleatly fungable
Lifting the sanctions may have lowered oil prices, but it wouldn't provide long term strategic control over the 3rd largest oil reserve on earth.
Ok and what does that "controll" buy us, or better yet what does it buy halliburton? Maybe anwar was a poor example (it matter not) there are still a thousand way bush could have handed hb money. Hell they would be buildking a caspian sea pipline in afghanistan right now..
It's not all about oil and money for Halliburton, but it's a far, far cry from not being about oil.
So you see Bush in a room saying well I would not invade Iraq but damn if they dont have oil... Seriously thats what you think it came down to?
There is nothing morally drastically different from 1 moment to the next during the development of the fetus (except for an increasing likely hood that the fetus will get to the point of actually appreciating its own existence). However that doesn't mean that a potential person has the same moral value as an actual person. And the moral calculus can not rest there.
Please dont lace the conversation with 'potential person' The state of the person is whats at issue.
There is an issue of weighing the harm caused to the woman by governmental imposition of child birth, and to all people in general by the fear of prosecution and fear of pregnancy which such a severe regime would cause, and the harm caused to the potential human being by abortion, and the harm caused to future potential human beings which are displaced by the birth of the non-aborted human being (who was saved by state prohibition of abortion).
So the government forces women have sex when they are not ready or willing to deal with the consiquences of that act? This is not china nobody is forcing a woman either to have or not to have kids.
We must also weigh the potential benefit of abortion to the life of the woman in question, and the benefit the abortion of 1 fetus, brings to the life of future potential children that woman will choose to bear (if the abortion is permitted), but will not bear if child birth is imposed.
Now who is equating sperm and skin cells with an unborn baby? This is an aweful argument, of course a woman might have 10 kids if she does not have this one, that is not the point. We dont kill people based based on the fact their may or may not be more people.
We may be able to safe a specific fetus by banning abortion. But where does that leave the mother, and future not as yet conceived fetuses. Do you assign them a moral value of "0"?
The baby is there because of a decision the mother made, I assign non human beings (the ones not conceived) a value of zero, because well they are not human beings.
To ban abortion in all cases you must be able to show that in the harm caused by lawful abortion and the benefit of prohibiting it outweigh the harm to women, and society and the potential benefit to the women and society by allowing them to make their own choice in private.
We dont kill people based on whats good for society, hitler did that.. WE dont round up the infirmed and kill the because society will benefit from the resources that are freed up, why would this be any different..
Ok here is my belief in a very smaa nutshell, life is two distinct moments seperated by an infinate series of infinatally small changes.
We are concieved, Nothing that happens after conception fundimentally changes up from what we were the previous moment. How are we different a moment before birth? what about a moment before that? and before that? Not until death do we fundimentally change, at that point into a pile of deomposing proteins. The task of picking a moment when something becomes not a person, to the moment it becomes a person is not one man should dare to make, when man makes that decision its a short walk to the concentration camp for someone.
I mean if a 6 month old baby (in the womb) is not a human is a baby 6 months oout of the womb? why? Is the issue viabality? what if someone (or with this defenition) something is not viable without machines? can we kill our parents because they need an iron lung? What about the retarded (I dont me slow, I mean drooling in a home retarded)? Now some say that abortion is wrong in the third trimester... why? what has changed between weeks 24 and 25? again we get into viabality, what if science finds a way to save a baby born at ten weeks? is that now the definition of life?
Do we define life by what *we* can save, is that our place in the universe? I find it amusing that after stripping away from the catholic church the pathetic belief that man is the center of the universe we are so quick to put him right back in the name of secular humanism and 'reproductive rights'. Now given mans place *not* at the center of things who are we to define life in a way that comforts us? A sperm if given all it needs becomes an old sperm and dies, the same with an egg, a baby from the day of conception if given what it needs become you or me, nothing after conception fundimentally changes us.
So you concede then that killing babies who were conceived by the act of rape is morally correct?
No, for the reasons above we can no more excuse the abortion such a baby than we can their execution at three years old, it come back around to who has the right to define life? and if we do so in an arbitrary manner what are the consiquences. my point is that the rape/insest argument is only used to put an extreem spin on something that is rare.
Well put, Most christians feel this way (in fact its pretty doctronally unsound not to). There is a reson than no man knows the day or the our and that is because G*d intends us to live our lives.
Two things drive me nuts, and that is George Bush Christians, and the Liberals who confuse them for actual Christians.
I do believe the constitution needed to be ammended to make slavery illegal in America. (I'm not sure on that point. I'm not american) I dont know how it is a "circular" argument. The constitution is the legal document which lays out your rights is it not?
Yup and people are using that logic to kill babies right now.
what do you mean "natural environment"? And what relevence does naturality have?
This is an answer to the idiotic statement a preborn baby is no different than a skin cell
The womb is a privately owned environment and it belongs to a particular female and no one else. The fact that the environment is natural or artificial does not change the fact that it is HER WOMB. It is her body.
And in 99.9999% of abortions a baby was put into the womb by the actions of said woman. I know this is a slight inconvenience but killing the baby is not right for that reason.
. Reality says that Halliburton is getting tremendous overpriced no-bid contracts for oil collection and other projects.
Yes and this is a systematic problem with our government, not a particular political party.
The administration has close ties to said company, and Cheney lied about his continuing financial interest in the company.
So if cheny used to say head up the red cross should they not be allowed in? This argument *might* hold some water if Clinton had not done the *exact same thing*
That's reality, and that is certainly a basis (leaving the issue of whether it is indeed true) for the "war for oil" claims.
Ok So if I get you right, even though oil is fungable, and even though Clinton gave no bid contracts to halliburton in the 90's its still blatent proof this was was about oil?
If you think saying Clinton did something similar will compel me to think that it is or was without underhanded motive, you are mistaken.
No I pointed out facts, I fully expected you to ignore them and contiune an anti-bush rant
I hold no delusion that Bush's Presidency is the first to be fraught with corruption.
Well at least we agree with that. None of your rant, however, indicates that Iraq was about oil. Do you really think Iraq was the most politically expedient way to get halliburton money? hell Bush could have rammed anwar through (he did have the votes) and gave halliburton a no bid contract for that.
I dont think Clinton bombed kosovo for halliburton, nor do I think Bush went into Iraq for halliburton. He was stubborn, short sighted, and in the end wrong to go in the way he did but it was not about oil.
Very well put. I am sure there were designers on SS1 from all parts of the world, but to be an American you only have to want to be an American. So to those from other countries who gave us their talent... (nelson) ha ha (/nalson);)
2) The reform party has pulled more than 10% in two presidential elections and elected a governer, what have the greens done nationally?
No while the reform party has fallen on hardtimes it is currently on the ballot in as many states as the green, and while you (a) may not agree with them, or (b) think that because they will most likely get fewer votes than the greens (although they will get more) does not mean they should be ignored.
The reform party has become a whore, how do you go from Perot -> Buchannan -> Nader? They want to put a name up, that being said Nader is a much bigger factor in this election than cobb..
Which is why giving Halliburton no-bid contracts is ridiculous.
Perhaps but it is just as rediculous as when cliton did it for kosovo. My point is that giving contracts to halliburton is not a hand out by this administration, it is something that is common in washington.
Handing these overpriced contracts to Halliburton was indefensible.
Just as it was when Clinton did it. The point is that the common calls that this war is about oil and halliburton are compleatly unbased in reality.
What do you intend to do about the continuing groth of the federal government at the expense of states rights? Laws like No Chiled left Behind (Which Mr Bush created and Mr Kerry voted for) and provisions in the patriot act unconstitutionally infringe on the states.
THank you, you deserve an insightful on this post..
Congress failed miserably in its job (and that includes most of the Democrats and almost all of the Republicans). Giving an authorization to go to war was a way to make contracotrs happy and save their butts but not actually voting for the war. Look at Kerry playing up the "I was tricked", I might buy that if he had actually done his damn job in the first place and demanded a decleration of war.
But alas its far easier for those on the left and right to be so busy fighting eachother they ignore the fact Kerry and Bush have both been destroying the constitution..
Ok, keep in mind I'm a jaded, paranoid conspiracy nut... and a Canadian to make it worst. But the reality of the war was to gain resources in particular oil.
Oil is fungable, the us has nothing to gain by invading Iraq. Simply lifting sancations (like France and Germany wanted) would reduce the cost of Oil as much (in fact more than) direct "control" over Iraq will..
If you want to know what this war really is about look at who profits http://www.halliburton.com/index.jsp
So I guess when Clinton gave Halliburton all kinds of contracts in Kosovo, and Yugoslavia that was all about padding corporate america's pockets right?
Look getting someone to do reconstruction in a war zone is not like hiring someone to seal your driveway, there are very few who do it and Halliburton just happens to be one of the bigger better companies..
Slashdot Mirror
Please, more Clinton soccer moms drive SUV's than anyone else. They need it to take their kid and her friends to soccer..
If your cell phone is in your jacket pocket and you are pretending it is a gun while you hold up a liquer store because you lost your factory job, you are proably a democrat.
Thats just silly we all know democrats dont work thats why youre all for free drugs and welfare ;p
If you don't have a cell phone because you don't want to feed a huge greedy corporate oligopoly you are a Nader supporter.
I got nothin'
If your cell phone is inserted in your boyfriends ass, you are either a Barney Frank supporter, a log cabin republican, or possibly just a seriously disturbed individual.
or you could be This Guy trying to be something he is not...
For what it is worth I used to work as a civi in the Corps of Engineers (NYPA District). Basically all that was left in the Buffalo office was a PM outfit that contracted out dredging of rivers and outlets. For example every other year we did the mouth on the Genesee (Rochester NY) I think the last time I did it was 1999, so I can tell you its done in *about* june 2001, 2003, 2005, ....now knowing all of this and having complete access to the project history of that site how long do you suppose the bidding process goes? It was a six month process and many times the estimates of material is off so there are differing site conditions to negotiate during a contract (which can stop a job dead). Contrast this to Iraq we have a huge and undefined scope of work, in an area we have little site knowledge of how long and how accurate do you think that bidding process would go?
Hey so long as you were having a coniption fit about it in 1998 I can agree with that, but as a sign I once saw so aptly pointed out... say no to war, unless there is a democrat in the whitehouie..
Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, possibly more in the nine tenths of the country that are unexplored, more than ten times the amount in the ANWR.
sigh... all of which is compleatly fungable
Lifting the sanctions may have lowered oil prices, but it wouldn't provide long term strategic control over the 3rd largest oil reserve on earth.
Ok and what does that "controll" buy us, or better yet what does it buy halliburton? Maybe anwar was a poor example (it matter not) there are still a thousand way bush could have handed hb money. Hell they would be buildking a caspian sea pipline in afghanistan right now..
It's not all about oil and money for Halliburton, but it's a far, far cry from not being about oil.
So you see Bush in a room saying well I would not invade Iraq but damn if they dont have oil... Seriously thats what you think it came down to?
Please dont lace the conversation with 'potential person' The state of the person is whats at issue.
There is an issue of weighing the harm caused to the woman by governmental imposition of child birth, and to all people in general by the fear of prosecution and fear of pregnancy which such a severe regime would cause, and the harm caused to the potential human being by abortion, and the harm caused to future potential human beings which are displaced by the birth of the non-aborted human being (who was saved by state prohibition of abortion). So the government forces women have sex when they are not ready or willing to deal with the consiquences of that act? This is not china nobody is forcing a woman either to have or not to have kids.
We must also weigh the potential benefit of abortion to the life of the woman in question, and the benefit the abortion of 1 fetus, brings to the life of future potential children that woman will choose to bear (if the abortion is permitted), but will not bear if child birth is imposed.
Now who is equating sperm and skin cells with an unborn baby? This is an aweful argument, of course a woman might have 10 kids if she does not have this one, that is not the point. We dont kill people based based on the fact their may or may not be more people.
We may be able to safe a specific fetus by banning abortion. But where does that leave the mother, and future not as yet conceived fetuses. Do you assign them a moral value of "0"?
The baby is there because of a decision the mother made, I assign non human beings (the ones not conceived) a value of zero, because well they are not human beings.
To ban abortion in all cases you must be able to show that in the harm caused by lawful abortion and the benefit of prohibiting it outweigh the harm to women, and society and the potential benefit to the women and society by allowing them to make their own choice in private.
We dont kill people based on whats good for society, hitler did that.. WE dont round up the infirmed and kill the because society will benefit from the resources that are freed up, why would this be any different..
WHo knew Moore posted on slashdot...
We are concieved, Nothing that happens after conception fundimentally changes up from what we were the previous moment. How are we different a moment before birth? what about a moment before that? and before that? Not until death do we fundimentally change, at that point into a pile of deomposing proteins. The task of picking a moment when something becomes not a person, to the moment it becomes a person is not one man should dare to make, when man makes that decision its a short walk to the concentration camp for someone.
I mean if a 6 month old baby (in the womb) is not a human is a baby 6 months oout of the womb? why? Is the issue viabality? what if someone (or with this defenition) something is not viable without machines? can we kill our parents because they need an iron lung? What about the retarded (I dont me slow, I mean drooling in a home retarded)? Now some say that abortion is wrong in the third trimester... why? what has changed between weeks 24 and 25? again we get into viabality, what if science finds a way to save a baby born at ten weeks? is that now the definition of life?
Do we define life by what *we* can save, is that our place in the universe? I find it amusing that after stripping away from the catholic church the pathetic belief that man is the center of the universe we are so quick to put him right back in the name of secular humanism and 'reproductive rights'. Now given mans place *not* at the center of things who are we to define life in a way that comforts us? A sperm if given all it needs becomes an old sperm and dies, the same with an egg, a baby from the day of conception if given what it needs become you or me, nothing after conception fundimentally changes us.
So you concede then that killing babies who were conceived by the act of rape is morally correct?
No, for the reasons above we can no more excuse the abortion such a baby than we can their execution at three years old, it come back around to who has the right to define life? and if we do so in an arbitrary manner what are the consiquences. my point is that the rape/insest argument is only used to put an extreem spin on something that is rare.
Umm I personally set that as the bar? when was that, where was I?
Two things drive me nuts, and that is George Bush Christians, and the Liberals who confuse them for actual Christians.
Yea ignore the post, talk about my sig *which is intented* to draw in commnet like yours, its a joke..
Yup and people are using that logic to kill babies right now.
what do you mean "natural environment"? And what relevence does naturality have?
This is an answer to the idiotic statement a preborn baby is no different than a skin cell
The womb is a privately owned environment and it belongs to a particular female and no one else. The fact that the environment is natural or artificial does not change the fact that it is HER WOMB. It is her body.
And in 99.9999% of abortions a baby was put into the womb by the actions of said woman. I know this is a slight inconvenience but killing the baby is not right for that reason.
Yes and this is a systematic problem with our government, not a particular political party.
The administration has close ties to said company, and Cheney lied about his continuing financial interest in the company.
So if cheny used to say head up the red cross should they not be allowed in? This argument *might* hold some water if Clinton had not done the *exact same thing*
That's reality, and that is certainly a basis (leaving the issue of whether it is indeed true) for the "war for oil" claims.
Ok So if I get you right, even though oil is fungable, and even though Clinton gave no bid contracts to halliburton in the 90's its still blatent proof this was was about oil?
If you think saying Clinton did something similar will compel me to think that it is or was without underhanded motive, you are mistaken.
No I pointed out facts, I fully expected you to ignore them and contiune an anti-bush rant
I hold no delusion that Bush's Presidency is the first to be fraught with corruption.
Well at least we agree with that. None of your rant, however, indicates that Iraq was about oil. Do you really think Iraq was the most politically expedient way to get halliburton money? hell Bush could have rammed anwar through (he did have the votes) and gave halliburton a no bid contract for that.
I dont think Clinton bombed kosovo for halliburton, nor do I think Bush went into Iraq for halliburton. He was stubborn, short sighted, and in the end wrong to go in the way he did but it was not about oil.
Holy S*&^ Im not a braindead fanatic, wait till I tell my mom about this ;)
DaVinci was a close contender, and they are ready to go.. I hope they still go even though the prize has been won, the more methods the better..
Very well put. I am sure there were designers on SS1 from all parts of the world, but to be an American you only have to want to be an American. So to those from other countries who gave us their talent... (nelson) ha ha (/nalson) ;)
Thank you for proving his sig is true....
2) The reform party has pulled more than 10% in two presidential elections and elected a governer, what have the greens done nationally?
No while the reform party has fallen on hardtimes it is currently on the ballot in as many states as the green, and while you (a) may not agree with them, or (b) think that because they will most likely get fewer votes than the greens (although they will get more) does not mean they should be ignored.
The reform party has become a whore, how do you go from Perot -> Buchannan -> Nader? They want to put a name up, that being said Nader is a much bigger factor in this election than cobb..
Perhaps but it is just as rediculous as when cliton did it for kosovo. My point is that giving contracts to halliburton is not a hand out by this administration, it is something that is common in washington.
Handing these overpriced contracts to Halliburton was indefensible.
Just as it was when Clinton did it. The point is that the common calls that this war is about oil and halliburton are compleatly unbased in reality.
What do you intend to do about the continuing groth of the federal government at the expense of states rights? Laws like No Chiled left Behind (Which Mr Bush created and Mr Kerry voted for) and provisions in the patriot act unconstitutionally infringe on the states.
I had the same thought, I wish the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Party were in this..
WHY DO I NEVER GET FP
Bush eats babies, while mothers watch....
How was england co-erced or bribed??
When it relates to a sexual harrasment trial, yes he can..
Congress failed miserably in its job (and that includes most of the Democrats and almost all of the Republicans). Giving an authorization to go to war was a way to make contracotrs happy and save their butts but not actually voting for the war. Look at Kerry playing up the "I was tricked", I might buy that if he had actually done his damn job in the first place and demanded a decleration of war.
But alas its far easier for those on the left and right to be so busy fighting eachother they ignore the fact Kerry and Bush have both been destroying the constitution..
Ok, keep in mind I'm a jaded, paranoid conspiracy nut... and a Canadian to make it worst. But the reality of the war was to gain resources in particular oil.
Oil is fungable, the us has nothing to gain by invading Iraq. Simply lifting sancations (like France and Germany wanted) would reduce the cost of Oil as much (in fact more than) direct "control" over Iraq will..
If you want to know what this war really is about look at who profits http://www.halliburton.com/index.jsp
So I guess when Clinton gave Halliburton all kinds of contracts in Kosovo, and Yugoslavia that was all about padding corporate america's pockets right?
Look getting someone to do reconstruction in a war zone is not like hiring someone to seal your driveway, there are very few who do it and Halliburton just happens to be one of the bigger better companies..