Except it wasn't wine, it was seltzer water, from a company who at one point made wine but then became active members of the Prohibitionist movement, but you personally feel that their anti-alcohol activities were really just a way to protect their other business interests and think the alcoholic should reject the seltzer because the underlying... *yawn*
Let's drop the analogy. You can't dispute that this was in fact an anti-slavery ship, but you think that Britain's anti-slavery activities weren't about the altruistic protection of the civil liberties of people forced into slavery, but rather a way of ensuring Britain's maritime and merchant interests. So fucking what. The actions of a nation-state, at least those of any significant material investment, essentially always are done for the sake of that nation's practical interests with any moral goal being at best secondary. The Emancipation Proclamation, which only applied to rebelling states, was really about morale and hopefully inspiring slave rebellions in the Confederacy rather than freeing the slaves as such. And yet, at least when it could be enforced by Union armies, that's exactly what it did. I'm betting you think Obama is an idiot who doesn't know history for idolizing Lincoln. Or maybe he just has a more realistic view of history, and admires someone who made practical and moral outcomes coincide.
In any case, an anti-slavery ship that was anti-slavery "for the wrong reasons" is nothing like a slave ship. It's nothing like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.
To the extent that there's any issue in this story at all, it's a diplomatic issue. Accepting the gift was diplomatically correct. Rejecting the gift, on the basis of your dubious theory, would be idiotic. Yours is the advice of an idiot.
So... what exactly are you saying? He received a gift from PM Gordon Brown, who presented it as a being made from an anti-slave ship, with obvious intended symbolism. And Obama, being properly (dubiously) educated by your post, should have done what? Shouted "Nigga, please! Slave trade protectionism isn't anti-slavery! Get that shit out of here!"
No, I'm serious. People are riding him for the diplomatic faux paus of cheesy gifts (not surprising, American Presidents have a long tradition of terrible handling of the whole Gifts To/From Heads of State issue). I can't imagine what you'd want him to do with your "information" other than refuse the gift, which would be what order of magnitude more of a faux paus?
Fact #2: There's no sound in space in Firefly, which is better than 99% of science fiction shows depict. Show some love.
Including Star Trek. Yeah, I went there.
Besides, one of the nice things about the name Serenity is how it would appear to non-fans. ISS modules: Unity, Harmony... Serenity? Sure, sounds perfectly fine. "Enterprise" was a good name for the space shuttle because there was already a long history of naval ships bearing the name so the homage to Trek didn't mess up the name for anyone who didn't care. Serenity has the same benefit.
Colbert doesn't have that advantage, but really, so what?
It doesn't hurt the cause that two of the largest Nasa facilities are in traditionally Republican areas - Texas and Florida.
Pfft, Texas wasn't Republican when they built the facility there. Texas was solidly Democrat until the 80s. Johnson Space Center is named after the Democrat who helped create it and was also the VP to the Democrat who pushed our space program more than anyone else ever has.
Of course that's history, and the situation today is much like you describe. But "traditionally" to me implies a period of time that doesn't match the length of time this has been true.
And hey, a surprising number of conservatives don't get that Colbert really isn't one of them, just like a surprising number of liberals don't get that he isn't either. Actually, the funniest thing ever is watching a liberal who doesn't get the joke instead get increasingly irate over Colbert's statements.
Make sense please. "Government" making money is different than a for-profit corporation making money because at the corp. the ones making business decisions get to put some of that profit into their pockets. That's kinda the point of it. What does the administrator running the lottery get if he through some method gets more people to participate in the lottery?
Your absolutism makes no sense either. Reducing the motivation for corruption reduces corruption. Corruption will still exist, but there will be less. Less corruption is good. Eliminating obvious and damaging examples of corruption is good, and "let's eliminate all lotteries!" is not in any remote way a counterargument to this.
How much time did your attorney actually spend on your case? He says they had months of lawyers talking, and when your lawyer talks to the prosecutor, that's $$$. Having a brief stint in court means he would have low court fees but that's not the same thing.
Frankly I don't know of any situation where you actually need an attorney's services and don't pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees when they don't take the case on contingency.
Glad to share. I first heard that around 15 years ago on a morning radio show on the way to high school, and they had a damn good Patrick Steward voice impersonation. I was laughing the whole way there, and of course the other kids thought I was (more) insane.
Taking bribes, cooking the books, etc are all illegal. People caught doing it get sent to prison. What, do you want to make it illegaler?
No he wants to eliminate the underlying cause of the corruption which is the profit motive. Yeah, yeah, there can still exist corruption, but the farther back you push it the more marginal the opportunity for profit and thus the more marginal the corruption itself. The TP supplier having a profit motive is infinitely better than having the prison have a direct profit motive itself, because the odds of a TP supplier coming out ahead bribing a judge to send a person to prison so they use some extra TP is slim.
In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.
Because it's the only way to protect them!
Imagine what harm could come to these poor girls if they weren't sent to prison for ten years and disallowed from coming anywhere near a school and having to notify all their neighbors of their crimes for the rest of their life?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Yeah, and based on the article I read earlier (my excuse for not RingTFA now) the basis for the judgement was that the pictures of the girls were not sexually explicit, not that charging the subject as in supposed victim of child pornography with life-devastating charges is an affront against the spirit of anti-child-porn laws and of justice itself.
I suppose given the former there's no reason to rule on the latter, but still I really wanted this to be thrown out because the very concept of charging the girls whose photos were taken is insanely Kafkaesque.
I'm certain that at least some of them are false, and thus I figure by extension many or even most are. The original one about the guy who crashed his car into a cliff after putting a JATO unit in the back of his car is definitely false -- though I've read at least one semi-plausible story that could be the source of the urban legend but didn't involve any death.
Still gives me a chuckle thinking that they might be true though.
LOL I thought it'd be some tard who forgot to empty N-1 chambers of the revolver... I never even imagined the kind of stupid where you'd play Russian Roulette with a semi-auto -- it's like the guy knew literally nothing about the game except that you shoot yourself in the head. The universe continues to amaze me!
Hence, Google is monetizing news content that they don't pay for.
No, Google is monetizing hyperlinks to news content that they don't pay for. But since when are you expected to pay for the privilege of linking to someone else's content? It's what Google and every other search engine does with every web page. Waaaaah, you can find my home page via a Google search, ergo Google should give me money? That's ridiculous! They're monetizing nothing more than the service they provide, which is the ability for people to find my content which I can then monetize however I want.
If Google put more than a sentence or two on their own website, obviating the need to click on the link and go to the news source to read the article, then there would be a scrap of a point here. But they're not. Instead, they're like a business complaining that the yellow pages dared to make a profit off of selling the phone directory that lets people find the business! Idiots!
Why on earth would these gal-danged scientists create a brain interface for robot control?! The fools have already ensured that the robots will take over our society and force us into slavery. Do they have to make it so easy for them that the robots can just control us directly via our brains?! Are they trying to destroy mankind? These scientists have gone mad!
You know, its amazing to think how much progress has been destroyed, avoided, or never attained because of stupid, idiotic, invisible little lines drawn up by a bunch of dead men.
So you're saying we should stop letting zombies draw our political borders? Yeah I think I can get behind that.
"Hello, this is Captain Picard. On the bridge of the Enterprise, I have no problems with Number One. Number two is a different matter. That's why I use Star Fleet Enemas. With a Star Fleet Enema, you can boldly go like no one has gone before!"
I've given it some thought, and forget the sticker. Instead I think I'm going to name my first-born daughter Rydia. And hey, couldn't you say that Rydia is an "R-Type" Lydia? Wow I'll have to remember that for when she's eight and she asks me why the hell I named her Rydia. She'll probably think that's awesome once I bust out the emulator.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it wasn't wine, it was seltzer water, from a company who at one point made wine but then became active members of the Prohibitionist movement, but you personally feel that their anti-alcohol activities were really just a way to protect their other business interests and think the alcoholic should reject the seltzer because the underlying... *yawn*
Let's drop the analogy. You can't dispute that this was in fact an anti-slavery ship, but you think that Britain's anti-slavery activities weren't about the altruistic protection of the civil liberties of people forced into slavery, but rather a way of ensuring Britain's maritime and merchant interests. So fucking what. The actions of a nation-state, at least those of any significant material investment, essentially always are done for the sake of that nation's practical interests with any moral goal being at best secondary. The Emancipation Proclamation, which only applied to rebelling states, was really about morale and hopefully inspiring slave rebellions in the Confederacy rather than freeing the slaves as such. And yet, at least when it could be enforced by Union armies, that's exactly what it did. I'm betting you think Obama is an idiot who doesn't know history for idolizing Lincoln. Or maybe he just has a more realistic view of history, and admires someone who made practical and moral outcomes coincide.
In any case, an anti-slavery ship that was anti-slavery "for the wrong reasons" is nothing like a slave ship. It's nothing like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.
To the extent that there's any issue in this story at all, it's a diplomatic issue. Accepting the gift was diplomatically correct. Rejecting the gift, on the basis of your dubious theory, would be idiotic. Yours is the advice of an idiot.
Reverse Streisand? I assume that's like the Reverse Cowgirl, only more horrific?
(lulz jk I know about the Streisand Effect. That's when she turns into a giant mechanical monster and battles Sidney Portier and Robert Smith)
So... what exactly are you saying? He received a gift from PM Gordon Brown, who presented it as a being made from an anti-slave ship, with obvious intended symbolism. And Obama, being properly (dubiously) educated by your post, should have done what? Shouted "Nigga, please! Slave trade protectionism isn't anti-slavery! Get that shit out of here!"
No, I'm serious. People are riding him for the diplomatic faux paus of cheesy gifts (not surprising, American Presidents have a long tradition of terrible handling of the whole Gifts To/From Heads of State issue). I can't imagine what you'd want him to do with your "information" other than refuse the gift, which would be what order of magnitude more of a faux paus?
That's Admiral Obvious to you. I was promoted when I observed that water was still wet and shit still stunk.
Yeah I would think it would rather involve putting the cannon in the horse.
Fact #2: There's no sound in space in Firefly, which is better than 99% of science fiction shows depict. Show some love.
Including Star Trek. Yeah, I went there.
Besides, one of the nice things about the name Serenity is how it would appear to non-fans. ISS modules: Unity, Harmony... Serenity? Sure, sounds perfectly fine. "Enterprise" was a good name for the space shuttle because there was already a long history of naval ships bearing the name so the homage to Trek didn't mess up the name for anyone who didn't care. Serenity has the same benefit.
Colbert doesn't have that advantage, but really, so what?
It doesn't hurt the cause that two of the largest Nasa facilities are in traditionally Republican areas - Texas and Florida.
Pfft, Texas wasn't Republican when they built the facility there. Texas was solidly Democrat until the 80s. Johnson Space Center is named after the Democrat who helped create it and was also the VP to the Democrat who pushed our space program more than anyone else ever has.
Of course that's history, and the situation today is much like you describe. But "traditionally" to me implies a period of time that doesn't match the length of time this has been true.
And hey, a surprising number of conservatives don't get that Colbert really isn't one of them, just like a surprising number of liberals don't get that he isn't either. Actually, the funniest thing ever is watching a liberal who doesn't get the joke instead get increasingly irate over Colbert's statements.
ZOMG girl computer! Talking to us!
Make sense please. "Government" making money is different than a for-profit corporation making money because at the corp. the ones making business decisions get to put some of that profit into their pockets. That's kinda the point of it. What does the administrator running the lottery get if he through some method gets more people to participate in the lottery?
Your absolutism makes no sense either. Reducing the motivation for corruption reduces corruption. Corruption will still exist, but there will be less. Less corruption is good. Eliminating obvious and damaging examples of corruption is good, and "let's eliminate all lotteries!" is not in any remote way a counterargument to this.
How much time did your attorney actually spend on your case? He says they had months of lawyers talking, and when your lawyer talks to the prosecutor, that's $$$. Having a brief stint in court means he would have low court fees but that's not the same thing.
Frankly I don't know of any situation where you actually need an attorney's services and don't pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees when they don't take the case on contingency.
Glad to share. I first heard that around 15 years ago on a morning radio show on the way to high school, and they had a damn good Patrick Steward voice impersonation. I was laughing the whole way there, and of course the other kids thought I was (more) insane.
Learn the true logic!
Taking bribes, cooking the books, etc are all illegal. People caught doing it get sent to prison. What, do you want to make it illegaler?
No he wants to eliminate the underlying cause of the corruption which is the profit motive. Yeah, yeah, there can still exist corruption, but the farther back you push it the more marginal the opportunity for profit and thus the more marginal the corruption itself. The TP supplier having a profit motive is infinitely better than having the prison have a direct profit motive itself, because the odds of a TP supplier coming out ahead bribing a judge to send a person to prison so they use some extra TP is slim.
Don't you just hate when you wake up in the morning after a night of heavy drinking and find out that you've taken advantage of yourself again?
Yes but I always find myself coming back for more so I must like it.
In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.
Because it's the only way to protect them!
Imagine what harm could come to these poor girls if they weren't sent to prison for ten years and disallowed from coming anywhere near a school and having to notify all their neighbors of their crimes for the rest of their life?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
These teens are in PA, not NJ.
And thus regardless of the actual ruling we can by deduction state that there are no "sexting" charges for nj teens, and the article title is correct!
Yeah, and based on the article I read earlier (my excuse for not RingTFA now) the basis for the judgement was that the pictures of the girls were not sexually explicit, not that charging the subject as in supposed victim of child pornography with life-devastating charges is an affront against the spirit of anti-child-porn laws and of justice itself.
I suppose given the former there's no reason to rule on the latter, but still I really wanted this to be thrown out because the very concept of charging the girls whose photos were taken is insanely Kafkaesque.
I'm certain that at least some of them are false, and thus I figure by extension many or even most are. The original one about the guy who crashed his car into a cliff after putting a JATO unit in the back of his car is definitely false -- though I've read at least one semi-plausible story that could be the source of the urban legend but didn't involve any death.
Still gives me a chuckle thinking that they might be true though.
LOL I thought it'd be some tard who forgot to empty N-1 chambers of the revolver... I never even imagined the kind of stupid where you'd play Russian Roulette with a semi-auto -- it's like the guy knew literally nothing about the game except that you shoot yourself in the head. The universe continues to amaze me!
Hence, Google is monetizing news content that they don't pay for.
No, Google is monetizing hyperlinks to news content that they don't pay for. But since when are you expected to pay for the privilege of linking to someone else's content? It's what Google and every other search engine does with every web page. Waaaaah, you can find my home page via a Google search, ergo Google should give me money? That's ridiculous! They're monetizing nothing more than the service they provide, which is the ability for people to find my content which I can then monetize however I want.
If Google put more than a sentence or two on their own website, obviating the need to click on the link and go to the news source to read the article, then there would be a scrap of a point here. But they're not. Instead, they're like a business complaining that the yellow pages dared to make a profit off of selling the phone directory that lets people find the business! Idiots!
Why on earth would these gal-danged scientists create a brain interface for robot control?! The fools have already ensured that the robots will take over our society and force us into slavery. Do they have to make it so easy for them that the robots can just control us directly via our brains?! Are they trying to destroy mankind? These scientists have gone mad!
What's that? Oh... never mind.
You know, its amazing to think how much progress has been destroyed, avoided, or never attained because of stupid, idiotic, invisible little lines drawn up by a bunch of dead men.
So you're saying we should stop letting zombies draw our political borders? Yeah I think I can get behind that.
/voice=Patrick Stewart
"Hello, this is Captain Picard. On the bridge of the Enterprise, I have no problems with Number One. Number two is a different matter. That's why I use Star Fleet Enemas. With a Star Fleet Enema, you can boldly go like no one has gone before!"
You don't say..
Yep, it is.
I've given it some thought, and forget the sticker. Instead I think I'm going to name my first-born daughter Rydia. And hey, couldn't you say that Rydia is an "R-Type" Lydia? Wow I'll have to remember that for when she's eight and she asks me why the hell I named her Rydia. She'll probably think that's awesome once I bust out the emulator.
Not as such, no. But what you fantasize the unicorn doing with its horn is a pretty strong indicator.