I thought race didn't matter in a non-racist world. Being pro race is also Racist./facepalm
No, recognizing a historic landmark in the conquest of racism is not racist; that's ridiculous. Historical context is not racist. Understanding the significance of events is not racist. Not operating under the amazingly naive belief that we live in a non-racist world, yesterday or today, is not racist. I guess you think memorializing Martin Luther King Jr is racist, too?
Well yeah I'm pretty sure an SSRB would have fucking destroyed the Delorean, either via excessive thrust or by simply crushing it when you tried to mount the SRB on top...
Here's an example from Fox, here's one from ABC. Far more people think McCain is running a negative campain than actually give a damn about the Ayers connection. The number of people who care about Ayers are far less than the number of people who say they will vote for McCain; it's reasonable to assume that the one is a subset of the other. More people think McCain has gone too far with the attacks than care about Ayers. The poll tightening is not due to McCain showing people "who Obama really is". People care about issues, it's the economy stupid, not these tenuous connections to slander-by-association.
I looked at the solargorilla but could not find any information about how much energy I need to generate with this device to reach the green break even - to offset the environmental cost of making this device. Anyone knows this information?
Well, as great as it is to be green-minded like that and to do your accounting, don't get too caught up in the idea that you have to have a net negative impact on the environment or you aren't accomplishing anything. We're just starting this "green" thing, and we already live in a society with huge environmental costs due to industry, and that's not going away for a long time. The key is not to try to erase that impact immediately, that's impossible, it is to begin to mitigate it.
So another useful and "green" comparison to make is between the solar panels and however many batteries (or whatever other power source) you would use instead over the life of the panels, and if the energy that goes into making the panels is less than the energy that goes into the batteries, then you've at least improved things. Incremental improvement is a completely valid way to be 'green'. Your life can never be energy positive. So just minimize your consumption. Just about anything reusable will help in this regard.
What needs to be mentioned if such a statement is to be of any use, is how long such melting is expected to take.
That's a very good point, and to answer the question raised by it I RTFAed so you don't have to! Regarding the "dump block" that they use to absorb the LHC beam before it becomes unstable:
The 10-ton graphite cylinder is encased in 1000 metric tons of steel and concrete. Why not just make the whole thing out of lead or another heavy metal? It turns out that graphite is the only material whose low density and high melting point can resist the ravages of the proton beam. In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper.
Emphasis added. That's one hell of a beam.
BTW, I can't help but recall that the Enterprise D from ST:TNG fires its phasers from a large ring on the saucer section. You can almost imagine the LHC being weaponized and using the same technique that diverts the beam into the dump block to direct it outward towards enemy ships. Though it'd have the rather significant drawback that any damage anywhere on the enormous accelerator ring would take out the weapon. But hey, energy beam!
In the US, you don't vote for the president directly, you vote for electoral voters, who then vote for the president. Certain states have more electoral voters than others.
Just to complete the picture, it's also the case that nearly all states' electoral voters are chosen as winner-take-all. This has the effect of magnifying the outcome in the state; a 0.1% victory for a candidate in Florida means that all of the electoral votes go for that candidate.
So why did they bail on casting their votes solely on the "strength" of early poll results?
Because they were stupid, both for paying attention to exit polls which as we all now hopefully realize have significant problems, and for thinking that whatever momentum those polls showed would be maintained without continued voting!
I think people have learned their lesson. A lot of us made some stupid mistakes back then. I don't think this one will be repeated. People will be staying to vote as long as it is physically possible.
I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.
Yeah, it'd be nice. It certainly couldn't hurt voter turnout to have the Western states not basically already know the outcome of the election! It's just, practically speaking, a difficult thing to do. Our concept of Free Speech basically won't allow us to force media silence, and there's no way the media will voluntarily not try to make news stories out of their projections.
From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.
Well let me clue you in, then.
"John Kerry didn't really earn his Purple Heart or Silver Star" is negative, inherently so, it calls into question his honestly, character and valor.
"John McCain is unstable, and possibly insane, due to his time as a POW during Vietnam" is negative, inherently so, as it takes an example of the man's tremendous courage and turns it into a negative, questioning his very sanity.
Compare those to "John McCain is an extension of G.W. Bush's Presidency", that's only negative if you happen to disagree with Bush's policies -- oh which the vast majority of American's do, thus McCain's attempts to distance himself from the man -- but is vastly different than the other examples. It's technically worded as a negatively, but it's no different than saying "I think my opponent's policies are bad for the country", which is what you would want a candidate to be saying in an issue- and policy-based campaign.
"Going negative" is when you try to smear their character for things other than their political record. Bush did it hardcore to Kerry and to McCain. Obama has by and large avoided it. McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show. See, even if you don't see the difference between "Your policies are like George Bush's" and "you pal around with terrorists", most Americans can, and that's part of why Barack Obama is going to be our next President.
As mentioned, looking at spoilers is not necessarily considered cheating. Really it's more of a personal preference. Personally, I'm opposed to most spoilers, but I do think it's fair for me to have some basic information. I call this "D&D" rules, in the sense that when playing D&D anything in the Player's Handbook is fair game for your character to 'know', while things in the Dungeon Master's Guide and other supplements may be considered out of bounds. So, based on that, I read spoilers for all the character classes and races regarding their abilities and potentials, and I read spoilers detailing all the normal (non-magical) loot. I figured not knowing the ultimate magical items is the game or the weaknesses of every nasty monster left a good deal for me to figure out, and BOY-HOWDY did it.:)
A bus based around each processor being connected to a central hub, and a bus based around each processor being connected to one or more other processors allowing a variety of system topologies, is a pretty radical change imo. Electrically ev6 is more similar to HT in that they're point-to-point busses instead of a multi-drop FSB, but logically it's more similar to an FSB, with N processors contending for a single north bridge. That 'logic' aspect affects a lot of the design of the protocol since there's no longer a common point of synchronization for memory requests.
So while it's not as big a step going from EV6 to HT as it is going from the P4 FSB to QPI, I'd still say the former was a very big change and a complete re-working of the system architecture.
But giga-transfers is a more accurate way to term it, especially when talking about something like the QPI (Quick-Path Interconnect), which is a point-to-point packet-based interconnect similar to AMD's Hypertransport. Each packet is going to involve some number of transfers worth of header information, and some number of transfers worth of data, and these are going to change based on the nature of the transaction. So the actual amount of GB/s of real data you get is going to depend on the nature of traffic itself, and how much of it is data responses versus data-less probe responses or data requests and so on.
I guess you could make some idealized assumptions, and say assume that every incoming packet is a data response packet and figure out the effective bandwidth. It'd give you a GB/s upper bound, at least, which is really all that most GB/s numbers are anyway when say talking about a DRAM bus. But for directly comparing improvements between busses, GT/s gives the most directly comparable number, i.e. the clock frequency.
Yes, there are a bunch of problems with society. But these problems aren't because of the law and societal norms, it is because people are breaking the law and societal norms.
Quite frequently, yes, but hardly always. Laws and societal norms can easily be a problem unto themselves. Jim Crow laws, and the societal racism that created and justified them, were a very big problem. The laws of China, or the U.S.S.R., were a major societal problem even when they are being followed. There is no possible way you could say that the problems of society are only caused by breaking the law or societal norms.
You are quite correct, though, in stating that this is better than anarchy. The solution to problematic laws is to correct those laws, eliminating or replacing them. Not to do away with the rule of law entirely. Part of the reason, aside from what any rapid descent into anarchy would do for the safety of the public at large, is that anarchy is unstable. Anarchy can last only as long as it takes for the wealthy and ambitious to decide that an absence of rules is a perfect opportunity for them to impose their own. The practical reality of anarchy is that it leads to war and dictatorship. The only exceptions are the same exceptions wherein Communism works similarly to its ideal: Small, isolated communes that exist as social experiments within an otherwise stable society of laws.
You state "Dictator Bush"... yes, I suppose he's broken some of the law and that's why people are angry with him.
I'm quite angry at Bush for things that are not against the law at all. Being such a frakin ignorant moron that you think you can invade Iraq without a plan for the occupation and think everything will turn out okay isn't illegal, and judging by the number who bought it at least at the beginning, isn't against societal norms either.
Yeah that's what I thought should happen, but the site I looked it up on said otherwise. I checked again on a different site and it agrees with you, the outcome I had expected, so I'm going with that.:)
I suppose losing a level would be more technically correct, though it depends on whether you consider "gaining" to mean "increasing the number" or "going up".
Anyway, the question you should be asking is what happens if you use a cursed potion of gain level on the uppermost level of the dungeon, i.e. the first floor below the surface.
And the answer is that, unless you're carrying the Amulet of Yendor, then nothing happens. If you do have the amulet, you go to the Plane of Earth (the first level in the final quest to ascend).
Yeah I had to look it up and yeah I thought it'd be more exciting... there are other cases where leaving the dungeon for the surface causes the game to end.
Um, illegal immigarants sdo not take jobs away from Americans, in fact they do jobs Americans wont.
That's misleading, because you're using 'job' to mean 'a type of work', but a job is really two things: work, and payment for that work.
Illegals do not do work that Americans won't. There's no type of work illegals are doing that a legal resident isn't doing somewhere.
Illegals do, however, work for payment than Americans wouldn't or couldn't. And this, fundamentally, is the problem. When you have workers who are willing to work under the table for a fraction of minimum wage, because that's still a lot more than they could have made in Mexico, then there's no way an American can compete for that job.
I mean, you really think no American would want to work in construction and house framing? Because that's not why builders are hiring illegals! They're doing it because it saves them a ton of cash, and not only would an American find those wages unacceptable, they couldn't even legally work for that level of pay!
As far as cabbage picking goes -- the answer is right there in your post: "anyone who could would find other work for the price." If they couldn't, they'd have been picking cabbage. What this means is that in that case, there were more decent-paying jobs than people to work them, i.e. a labor shortage.
It's not cases where there's a labor shortage that people are upset about.
Illegals do take jobs from Americans where the economics of the situation take a good job for an American and make it a bad job for an American by lowering the wage. Also, no, they don't pay taxes on their wages. They can't. It would out them as illegals and they'd be deported.
The solution, though, isn't to persecute them and try to kick them out. That's stupid. Not to mention cruel, and contrary to the spirit of a nation built entirely by immigrants, and these people are to the first order good and hard working people just like we are.
Especially since the real problem is the employers who are willing to hire illegals under the table for what would be illegally low wages if the job was legal to begin with.
The solution is to eliminate the category known as "illegal immigrant". Then they and their employers would have to pay taxes, they would have to at least be paid the minimum wage, and suddenly the economics of the situation are completely different and Americans have a fighting chance of getting those jobs.
This should be accompanied by prosecuting the ever-loving shit out of employers who violate labor laws. Really, this should be the case no matter what we do about immigration laws.
So in and of itself, that wouldn't mean anything, and should not be a question. His response would have been. Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.
Bah, nonsense. All the people who think Obama is or might be a Secret Muslim care first and foremost about him being an evil, scary Muslim. The Secret part is secondary; obviously he'd have to lie about being an evil, scary Muslim in order to trick the American people into voting for an evil, scary Muslim.
To them, this isn't like lying about a BJ between consenting adults. This is like a guy lying about being a child molester -- the lie ain't the big crime!
I mean sure, if it turned out somehow Obama was lying about his religion, that would me what mattered to some of us. But none of us for whom that would be the case actually think he's lying!
And to people like us, or at least to me, it seems pretty silly on its face. I mean, I'm no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure not even the most extreme Muslims go around hiding their faith, and it doesn't matter what you tell some infidel if you aren't following God's law then you aren't going to paradise. So with all the thousands of people who see him every day on the campaign trail, and nobody's seen him bust out a prayer mat, then guess what? He's as Muslim as David Cross is (religiously) Jewish.
Is it just me, or has this always sounded like a German euphemism for cunnilingus to anyone else?
And Shiner. You forgot the Shiner Bock!
Meh. It's okay beer, I guess. The best thing about Shiner is that it's virtually guaranteed to be present at any event in Texas, so I'm never stuck drinking craptacular macro-brewed "American-style lagers".
And Roller Derby.
Mmm, Texas Roller Girls.
Oh, and btw, I'm originally from Michigan. Texas doesn't have any lakes (well I guess it has one). Man-made puddles don't count, even if it is still fun to go out on a buddy's sail boat in one.:P
I don't understand. If you have health insurance then the same is true. The people who don't claim subsidise the ones that do. The only difference is that the insurance company is skimming a big chunk off the top and trying to avoid paying anyone if they can possibly avoid it.
Well there's another difference. And that's that the other people in your health insurance plan tend to be more or less your socio-economic equals. Which makes it okay.
Slashdot Mirror
Racist much?
I thought race didn't matter in a non-racist world. Being pro race is also Racist. /facepalm
No, recognizing a historic landmark in the conquest of racism is not racist; that's ridiculous. Historical context is not racist. Understanding the significance of events is not racist. Not operating under the amazingly naive belief that we live in a non-racist world, yesterday or today, is not racist. I guess you think memorializing Martin Luther King Jr is racist, too?
Well yeah I'm pretty sure an SSRB would have fucking destroyed the Delorean, either via excessive thrust or by simply crushing it when you tried to mount the SRB on top...
What, you don't think people will respond with awed gasps when you tell them that your doomsday ray has power equivalent to 55 milli-SSRBs?
Here's an example from Fox, here's one from ABC. Far more people think McCain is running a negative campain than actually give a damn about the Ayers connection. The number of people who care about Ayers are far less than the number of people who say they will vote for McCain; it's reasonable to assume that the one is a subset of the other. More people think McCain has gone too far with the attacks than care about Ayers. The poll tightening is not due to McCain showing people "who Obama really is". People care about issues, it's the economy stupid, not these tenuous connections to slander-by-association.
I looked at the solargorilla but could not find any information about how much energy I need to generate with this device to reach the green break even - to offset the environmental cost of making this device. Anyone knows this information?
Well, as great as it is to be green-minded like that and to do your accounting, don't get too caught up in the idea that you have to have a net negative impact on the environment or you aren't accomplishing anything. We're just starting this "green" thing, and we already live in a society with huge environmental costs due to industry, and that's not going away for a long time. The key is not to try to erase that impact immediately, that's impossible, it is to begin to mitigate it.
So another useful and "green" comparison to make is between the solar panels and however many batteries (or whatever other power source) you would use instead over the life of the panels, and if the energy that goes into making the panels is less than the energy that goes into the batteries, then you've at least improved things. Incremental improvement is a completely valid way to be 'green'. Your life can never be energy positive. So just minimize your consumption. Just about anything reusable will help in this regard.
Anyone know what the standard made-up unit is for energy/time?
Energy/time is Power. I don't know if there's a standard, but if not I nominate Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters.
That's ~4.9 GW, btw.
What needs to be mentioned if such a statement is to be of any use, is how long such melting is expected to take.
That's a very good point, and to answer the question raised by it I RTFAed so you don't have to! Regarding the "dump block" that they use to absorb the LHC beam before it becomes unstable:
Emphasis added. That's one hell of a beam.
BTW, I can't help but recall that the Enterprise D from ST:TNG fires its phasers from a large ring on the saucer section. You can almost imagine the LHC being weaponized and using the same technique that diverts the beam into the dump block to direct it outward towards enemy ships. Though it'd have the rather significant drawback that any damage anywhere on the enormous accelerator ring would take out the weapon. But hey, energy beam!
In the US, you don't vote for the president directly, you vote for electoral voters, who then vote for the president. Certain states have more electoral voters than others.
Just to complete the picture, it's also the case that nearly all states' electoral voters are chosen as winner-take-all. This has the effect of magnifying the outcome in the state; a 0.1% victory for a candidate in Florida means that all of the electoral votes go for that candidate.
So why did they bail on casting their votes solely on the "strength" of early poll results?
Because they were stupid, both for paying attention to exit polls which as we all now hopefully realize have significant problems, and for thinking that whatever momentum those polls showed would be maintained without continued voting!
I think people have learned their lesson. A lot of us made some stupid mistakes back then. I don't think this one will be repeated. People will be staying to vote as long as it is physically possible.
I am of the opinion that the votes should not be counted (or at least, the counts not made public) until all the polls have closed. If that means waiting until midnight Hawaii time, then so be it. That way, people's votes won't be tainted by results from polling stations in more easterly time zones.
Yeah, it'd be nice. It certainly couldn't hurt voter turnout to have the Western states not basically already know the outcome of the election! It's just, practically speaking, a difficult thing to do. Our concept of Free Speech basically won't allow us to force media silence, and there's no way the media will voluntarily not try to make news stories out of their projections.
From day 1 the democrats were labeling McCain as Bush Jr.. if that's not negativity, then I don't know what is.
Well let me clue you in, then.
"John Kerry didn't really earn his Purple Heart or Silver Star" is negative, inherently so, it calls into question his honestly, character and valor.
"John McCain is unstable, and possibly insane, due to his time as a POW during Vietnam" is negative, inherently so, as it takes an example of the man's tremendous courage and turns it into a negative, questioning his very sanity.
Compare those to "John McCain is an extension of G.W. Bush's Presidency", that's only negative if you happen to disagree with Bush's policies -- oh which the vast majority of American's do, thus McCain's attempts to distance himself from the man -- but is vastly different than the other examples. It's technically worded as a negatively, but it's no different than saying "I think my opponent's policies are bad for the country", which is what you would want a candidate to be saying in an issue- and policy-based campaign.
"Going negative" is when you try to smear their character for things other than their political record. Bush did it hardcore to Kerry and to McCain. Obama has by and large avoided it. McCain started off without doing it, but at the extremely poor advice of his advisors decided to start doing it late in the campaign, with the result that he actually turned voters away who are sick of it. This "mindless droning" may turn you off, but that's what the polls show. See, even if you don't see the difference between "Your policies are like George Bush's" and "you pal around with terrorists", most Americans can, and that's part of why Barack Obama is going to be our next President.
As mentioned, looking at spoilers is not necessarily considered cheating. Really it's more of a personal preference. Personally, I'm opposed to most spoilers, but I do think it's fair for me to have some basic information. I call this "D&D" rules, in the sense that when playing D&D anything in the Player's Handbook is fair game for your character to 'know', while things in the Dungeon Master's Guide and other supplements may be considered out of bounds. So, based on that, I read spoilers for all the character classes and races regarding their abilities and potentials, and I read spoilers detailing all the normal (non-magical) loot. I figured not knowing the ultimate magical items is the game or the weaknesses of every nasty monster left a good deal for me to figure out, and BOY-HOWDY did it. :)
A bus based around each processor being connected to a central hub, and a bus based around each processor being connected to one or more other processors allowing a variety of system topologies, is a pretty radical change imo. Electrically ev6 is more similar to HT in that they're point-to-point busses instead of a multi-drop FSB, but logically it's more similar to an FSB, with N processors contending for a single north bridge. That 'logic' aspect affects a lot of the design of the protocol since there's no longer a common point of synchronization for memory requests.
So while it's not as big a step going from EV6 to HT as it is going from the P4 FSB to QPI, I'd still say the former was a very big change and a complete re-working of the system architecture.
But giga-transfers is a more accurate way to term it, especially when talking about something like the QPI (Quick-Path Interconnect), which is a point-to-point packet-based interconnect similar to AMD's Hypertransport. Each packet is going to involve some number of transfers worth of header information, and some number of transfers worth of data, and these are going to change based on the nature of the transaction. So the actual amount of GB/s of real data you get is going to depend on the nature of traffic itself, and how much of it is data responses versus data-less probe responses or data requests and so on.
I guess you could make some idealized assumptions, and say assume that every incoming packet is a data response packet and figure out the effective bandwidth. It'd give you a GB/s upper bound, at least, which is really all that most GB/s numbers are anyway when say talking about a DRAM bus. But for directly comparing improvements between busses, GT/s gives the most directly comparable number, i.e. the clock frequency.
Yes, there are a bunch of problems with society. But these problems aren't because of the law and societal norms, it is because people are breaking the law and societal norms.
Quite frequently, yes, but hardly always. Laws and societal norms can easily be a problem unto themselves. Jim Crow laws, and the societal racism that created and justified them, were a very big problem. The laws of China, or the U.S.S.R., were a major societal problem even when they are being followed. There is no possible way you could say that the problems of society are only caused by breaking the law or societal norms.
You are quite correct, though, in stating that this is better than anarchy. The solution to problematic laws is to correct those laws, eliminating or replacing them. Not to do away with the rule of law entirely. Part of the reason, aside from what any rapid descent into anarchy would do for the safety of the public at large, is that anarchy is unstable. Anarchy can last only as long as it takes for the wealthy and ambitious to decide that an absence of rules is a perfect opportunity for them to impose their own. The practical reality of anarchy is that it leads to war and dictatorship. The only exceptions are the same exceptions wherein Communism works similarly to its ideal: Small, isolated communes that exist as social experiments within an otherwise stable society of laws.
You state "Dictator Bush"... yes, I suppose he's broken some of the law and that's why people are angry with him.
I'm quite angry at Bush for things that are not against the law at all. Being such a frakin ignorant moron that you think you can invade Iraq without a plan for the occupation and think everything will turn out okay isn't illegal, and judging by the number who bought it at least at the beginning, isn't against societal norms either.
Yeah that's what I thought should happen, but the site I looked it up on said otherwise. I checked again on a different site and it agrees with you, the outcome I had expected, so I'm going with that. :)
Ha I knew it! ;)
Yeah, but no employer, even for a quantum mechanics related job, wants to hear that you may or may not have graduated with a degree.
I suppose losing a level would be more technically correct, though it depends on whether you consider "gaining" to mean "increasing the number" or "going up".
Anyway, the question you should be asking is what happens if you use a cursed potion of gain level on the uppermost level of the dungeon, i.e. the first floor below the surface.
And the answer is that, unless you're carrying the Amulet of Yendor, then nothing happens. If you do have the amulet, you go to the Plane of Earth (the first level in the final quest to ascend).
Yeah I had to look it up and yeah I thought it'd be more exciting... there are other cases where leaving the dungeon for the surface causes the game to end.
Um, illegal immigarants sdo not take jobs away from Americans, in fact they do jobs Americans wont.
That's misleading, because you're using 'job' to mean 'a type of work', but a job is really two things: work, and payment for that work.
Illegals do not do work that Americans won't. There's no type of work illegals are doing that a legal resident isn't doing somewhere.
Illegals do, however, work for payment than Americans wouldn't or couldn't. And this, fundamentally, is the problem. When you have workers who are willing to work under the table for a fraction of minimum wage, because that's still a lot more than they could have made in Mexico, then there's no way an American can compete for that job.
I mean, you really think no American would want to work in construction and house framing? Because that's not why builders are hiring illegals! They're doing it because it saves them a ton of cash, and not only would an American find those wages unacceptable, they couldn't even legally work for that level of pay!
As far as cabbage picking goes -- the answer is right there in your post: "anyone who could would find other work for the price." If they couldn't, they'd have been picking cabbage. What this means is that in that case, there were more decent-paying jobs than people to work them, i.e. a labor shortage.
It's not cases where there's a labor shortage that people are upset about.
Illegals do take jobs from Americans where the economics of the situation take a good job for an American and make it a bad job for an American by lowering the wage. Also, no, they don't pay taxes on their wages. They can't. It would out them as illegals and they'd be deported.
The solution, though, isn't to persecute them and try to kick them out. That's stupid. Not to mention cruel, and contrary to the spirit of a nation built entirely by immigrants, and these people are to the first order good and hard working people just like we are.
Especially since the real problem is the employers who are willing to hire illegals under the table for what would be illegally low wages if the job was legal to begin with.
The solution is to eliminate the category known as "illegal immigrant". Then they and their employers would have to pay taxes, they would have to at least be paid the minimum wage, and suddenly the economics of the situation are completely different and Americans have a fighting chance of getting those jobs.
This should be accompanied by prosecuting the ever-loving shit out of employers who violate labor laws. Really, this should be the case no matter what we do about immigration laws.
So, you're telling me that it isn't a euphemism for oral sex. Are you sure? Isn't it possible that it might be, in secret?
So in and of itself, that wouldn't mean anything, and should not be a question. His response would have been. Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.
Bah, nonsense. All the people who think Obama is or might be a Secret Muslim care first and foremost about him being an evil, scary Muslim. The Secret part is secondary; obviously he'd have to lie about being an evil, scary Muslim in order to trick the American people into voting for an evil, scary Muslim.
To them, this isn't like lying about a BJ between consenting adults. This is like a guy lying about being a child molester -- the lie ain't the big crime!
I mean sure, if it turned out somehow Obama was lying about his religion, that would me what mattered to some of us. But none of us for whom that would be the case actually think he's lying!
And to people like us, or at least to me, it seems pretty silly on its face. I mean, I'm no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure not even the most extreme Muslims go around hiding their faith, and it doesn't matter what you tell some infidel if you aren't following God's law then you aren't going to paradise. So with all the thousands of people who see him every day on the campaign trail, and nobody's seen him bust out a prayer mat, then guess what? He's as Muslim as David Cross is (religiously) Jewish.
SCHLITTERBAHN! (Ahem, sorry.)
Is it just me, or has this always sounded like a German euphemism for cunnilingus to anyone else?
And Shiner. You forgot the Shiner Bock!
Meh. It's okay beer, I guess. The best thing about Shiner is that it's virtually guaranteed to be present at any event in Texas, so I'm never stuck drinking craptacular macro-brewed "American-style lagers".
And Roller Derby.
Mmm, Texas Roller Girls.
Oh, and btw, I'm originally from Michigan. Texas doesn't have any lakes (well I guess it has one). Man-made puddles don't count, even if it is still fun to go out on a buddy's sail boat in one. :P
I swear, half of Slashdot is secretly hoping McCain wins, because if he loses, they won't have anything to post.
I'm not worried, since Palin has promised to continue providing us with material in either case.
God damnit, so close and I'm stuck with this stupid butler trained in holistic medicine!
I don't understand. If you have health insurance then the same is true. The people who don't claim subsidise the ones that do. The only difference is that the insurance company is skimming a big chunk off the top and trying to avoid paying anyone if they can possibly avoid it.
Well there's another difference. And that's that the other people in your health insurance plan tend to be more or less your socio-economic equals. Which makes it okay.
Insurance: Socialism for elitists.
The General Welfare clause provides the power so the 10th doesn't apply. Have a nice day.