Absolute nonsense. Lilo and Stitch was their most recent film.
Absolutely wrong. After Lilo and Stich, there was Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, and Home On The Range.
that Disney has published several DVDs and a made television show from it.
Uh, Disney does that with everything they can. They did that with Hercules! Doesn't mean the first movie was really much good.
Disney kept the animators employed for a whole year before firing the entire studio.
Which just goes to show you how hard Disney tried to keep the animation studio going, even after it was no longer worth it.
Oh, and they were so concerned about wasting money that they flushed the project they were
Because it had become abundantly clear that viewers simply didn't want to pay for feature length theatrical cartoons anymore.They know the movie wasn't going to be substantially more appealing than Home On The Range had been, so they had no reason to think it would sell any more tickets.
working on (and all the money that had been spent) down a toilet.
Not the first time they've had to discard something that just wasn't coming together. One cartoon had 300 minutes animated from 69 to 81, and it was totally abandoned.
Really? There are 400 animation studios in Japan.
If I told you that retired adults didn't like to read comic books, would you throw manga at me? I thought the USA-centric context was quite clear. The Japanese marketplace isn't relevant towards Disney's business.
And anyway, anime movies are a niche market in Japan, too. It's mainstream on TV, but in theaters it's all either G-rated toy ads, a limited release otaku-attractor (based on a popular TV/OAV) or something from Ghilbi (but not more than once every 3 years).
Yeah, like a writer. There are eight shelves of anime at Best Buy.
Funny, because a lot of anime is in dire need of a good writer- especially if you just sample from Best Buy, where anime is divided into Dragonball clones and Pokemon clones.
What is the advantage of carrying two different devices?
Battery life. When you get caught up in a game with color + sound, you won't lose phone reception just because you forgot to pay attention to the battery meter.
Of course, this is the argument to buy phone + Gameboy, not phone + PDA.
This is DC, so there is no possible periodic relief as with AC, where the voltage goes thru zero every 100 or 120 times a second -- this is a steady continuous current. The man will most likely fall over once his leg muscles, already damaged, have seized,
Yes, it's DC, which means that your muscles don't seize- they convulse, throwing you in one direction or another. That may wind up pushing you back from the rail, or knocking you over to fall ontop of it. The pause between peaks of AC cannot be considered "periodic relief", because human nerves cannot respond in the 2 milliseconds of reduced power.
For the same voltage and current, AC is more dangerous than DC, because the alternation causes the paralyzed victim to continue touching the wires for longer. AC shocks you in place; DC blasts you away.
your own links show there has never been a single case of a cell phone causing an explosion
They do not show that. Showing that would be nearly impossible, without listing the cause of every single explosion, ever. (The usual "abscense of evidence for evidence of abscense" fallacy)
Furthermore, the question was not "Has it ever happened?" but "cell phones cannot cause explosions"... and it fact, if a person specifically wanted to, it would be easy to re-wire a cellphone to spark an explosion.
Disney laid off hundreds upon hundreds of totally irreplaceable feature animators over the past few years, most recently in Florida. These people were almost directly responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the company. But, they're too expensive.
Your charges are entirely backward. Due to a sense of loyalty, tradition, and pride, Disney kept those artists employed long after they ceased to be profitable.
Audiences today just don't like to watch untextured, cell-based cartoons anymore. The last hugely successful cell-based film was Lion King in 1994. Then Toy Story came out, and the downward slide began. Disney's final cartoon, Home On the Range, was not a bad movie, but it made no money, because today's viewers want something else.
Re:This has been on memepool since the 7th
on
The Conference Bike
·
· Score: 1
It's been on Slashdot ever since someone needed a comparator to make the four-wheeled Segway appear relatively sensible.
It is impossible for the indexer to look at files that I can't access through a normal way (via explorer).
Your message is insufficient to prove that.
If Google Desktop was installed by an administrator, then it could've possibly installed a system-level DLL which that program can be using to look into forbidden files, without opening them directly itself.
Any program which had admin privs at installation could've kept them, meaning it can potentially violate file-access controls whenever the program is later run by a normal user. That's why I don't approve of videogame installers that require admin rights.
I haven't installed Google Desktop though, so I don't know if it requires administrator install- but I think most people install that way anyhow.
I thought you were arguing that it was too fuzzy of a standard...which is it?
And to expand: You justify a medically-necessary abortion as similar to a killing in self-defense. That's fine reasoning that almost no one will dispute.
But to say that mental health also qualifies as a medical necessity implies that I can kill a man if he's driving me crazy ("Sherrif, I had to kill him, to defend my fragile ego").
I thought you were arguing that it was too fuzzy of a standard...which is it?
Why do you bother typing so much if you won't even pay a little attention to the posts you're responding to? (I'm reminded of Karl Rove's fondness for willfully misunderstanding Kerry to attack him on positions he doesn't even hold)
As I PLAINLY stated, classifying mental health as a medical risk that can justify abortion is excessively fuzzy.
Not in Texas in 1973 she couldn't- and read the majority opinion of SCOTUS sometime-
Funny, that's exactly what I just read to make sure I was right that her abortion was not needed for her own health.
I see no difference between the two morally- when one patient is less likely to survive than the other, it's perfectly legal to remove life support from the one (killing him) to give organs to the other.
You may think it's moral, but it is 100% illegal.
Ever hear of Shrapnel?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with his influential career. There have been no large-scale serious shrapnel casualties suffered by US troops since the pullout from Vietnam.
And I'd still really enjoy seeing a citation of any incident where a doctor allowed one victim to die so his veins could be grafted into another.
You are so full of horse-crap. You are aware that the Republican party, as it was first conceived, was identical to the current Libertarian party? They were the staunch supporters of government non-interventionism.
Hmmm... let's think... What was the first action taken by the Republican party once it reached national office?
Oh yes! The Civil War- the single largest government intervention in the history of the USA.
Don't expect me to agree wholeheartedly with the LP nationals.
I don't really care about what your opinions are. This thread is about Mike Badnarik, who belongs to the LP.
You don't know the first thing about Libertarians.
No. It's you who doesn't understand. You're having this big argument and using words without even knowing what they mean. The core of your problem seems to be the belief that "Libertarian" and "libertarian" are synonyms.
They are not! A "Libertarian" (capital L) is an adherent of the Libertarian Party, which believes in triming down the functions of government to a minimal sliver. A lower-cased "libertarian" is someone who supports the ideals of personal liberty.
For comparison, ask yourself if "democrat" means the same thing as "Democrat". Obviously, they're different- the first one is a person who supports rule by the people, and the second is the member of one of the USA's two large political parties.
You need to learn about capital letters and proper nouns. Capitalizing an existing word makes it into a name that refers to a specific person or group, which can have entirely different principles than the original word it's based on. (For extra credit, figure out the difference between "windows" and "Windows")
Now that that's cleared up, the rest of your posts are meaningless, because you're arguing against a position that only existed in your imagination.
In a properly functioning republic, the word government can be replaced by the people.
False. The only way that could be true is if you use "properly functioning" as a synonym for "democratic".
In a properly functioning communist state, the word government can be replaced by the people.
True, because communism is an economic system, not a political one.
It's quite common in Europe to have laws that are this fuzzy
And what else is quite common in Europe? Legal abortion.
And since not every situation is forseeable; such laws often fail.
Correct. Overly simplistic laws cause unfairness. And "Abortion is murder, unless it's self-defense" is a simplistic standard.
for legalizing abortion has nothing to do with birth control at all- it has to do with saving women's lives.
Saving lives by preventing (or "controlling") a risky birth. Birth control.
The reason given in Roe V. Wade for legalizing abortion has nothing to do with birth control at all- it has to do with saving women's lives.
Completely wrong. Jane Roe's health was in no way endangered by her pregnancy. If it had been, then she could've gotten an abortion easily, without the need for the lawsuit.
It was the surgeon's duty to save the man that he could- and let the other one die. That's the very DEFINITION of triage-
Yes, that's "triage" alright. Which just confirms my suspicion that you had NO IDEA what you typed earlier. You said a doctor could KILL one man to TAKE HIS ORGANS and give them TO ANOTHER.
Apparently you didn't mean to say that, but you did. (Here's the clause again, for reference: "a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft")
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the invasions of Grenada and Panama- we've been in plenty of large scale battles in the last 50 years. Where have you been?
Aortic grafting techniques were not available to emergency physicians until after the Vietnam war concluded. (They had been used as an experimental technique by occasional specialists, but not in urgent situations).
Post-Vietnam, the USA military has not engaged in any large battles- if you define "battle" as a two-sided conflict, instead of a turkey-shoot like some of the 800:1 ratio engagements of ODS.
(There have been occasional incidents where large numbers of US troops have been killed/wounded in a short time, but those were based on a large explosion or airplane crash, which unlike small arms fire, are unlikely to produce treatable cardiac damage)
I've been quite strong about pointing out that there are only two ways out of this war Bush has gotten us into: Genocide and surrender.
I read that journal. It is based on a completely different definition of "surrender" than used in the English language. (Hint: Although the USA didn't win in Vietnam, they didn't surrender either)
Heaven forbid that legislators actually do the right thing for the people they represent
If you're a California legislator, then the (majority of) the people you represent DO want Kerry to win, and they want you to support that interest and give him as many electoral votes as possible.
Voting for proportionate EV allocation means doing the right thing for the whole of the country, at the expense of your own state.
Being a Libertarian is about recognizing that, currently, large corporations have an advantage over any competition due to legal government protection.
Oh, and that's the central and defining concept of the Green Party.
In the USA, the Libertarian Party is the most pro-corporate, and the Greens are the least. The Republicans are in the middle, and the Democrats are very slightly less corporate than them (differing mainly in which corporations they prefer).
An ideal Libertarian would scrap all the laws at once and go back to working from the Constitution.
You must be working from a different definition of "Libertarian" than the Libertarian Party is. In fact, what you've just described is really the Constitution Party (obviously).
The Libertarian Party does NOT support all of the Constitution. They don't even agree with most of it.
In fact, the LP is quite unique in USA politics, because the Republicans, Democrats, Reforms, Greens, and Constituionalists are all democratic, while the LP is undemocratic.
They don't like to bring up the fact that they're undemocratic, and that's fair, because they'll never advance their agenda to the point where it matters. But just consider this quote:
Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
Recall that in a democracy, the word "government" can be replaced by "people". Read the quote making that substitution, and it becomes more sinister. Sometimes the needs of the many DO outweigh the property of the few, but the LP denies that.
Yes. Those with the most money will always have the most power.
No. In a democratic capitalist society, there are two sources of power: money and votes. Money is more directly useful in daily life, and money can influence and twist voter's opinions, but if the rich become truely abusive, then we can fall back to votes to take care of them.
In a Libertarian country, money is the only power. When the rich become too dominant, and there is no way to vote against them, then the only remaining option is violent revolution.
As for the rest, you're totally out of your gourd. How is assault with toxic chemicals not still assault? How is a misleading contract and a defective product not fraud?
If you can't figure out the answers yourself, you're hazardously naive.
Read some USA history. Assault and fraud have been illegal for hundreds of years, yet in the 20th century pollution and defective products were legal until specific new laws were created to combat it.
Something that's not forceful and not fraudulent can still be not fair.
About the only times they can get away with xeing complete schmucks and alienating their own customers are when they have government-granted protection from the consequences
Again, you show an astounding historicalignorance, well below even the maligned standards of USA public schooling.
Monopolies WILL happen, even without government aid. But the Libertarian Party, by principle, can never act against a monopolist. That means governance will be ceded to the next company which emerges as a natural monopoly.
(There's nothing wrong with supporting the LP if it's with the understanding that their views will never achieve near dominance, and you only want to encourage a push in that direction)
government-granted monopoly
That's more ignorance, although of a more excusable variety, because fewer people are really aware of what "government" is. "Government" is that which "governs". If that entity which you today label "government" abdicates many of its functions, they will be taken up by other, commercial operations- meaning corporations become the new government.
Do some experiments. Find any specific existing law which is considered anti-corporate, and then "research" the Libertarian Party position on that law.
Unless it's straight-out corp welfware, the LP is against it. Far more laws and regulations are anti-corporate than are anti-individual. Since the LP wants to remove most all laws, they are then more pro-corp than pro-individual.
I do know we STARTED out that way, so I say why not try it again?
"It didn't work the first time, so let's try it again!"
Bush gets replaced by an orangutan.
That happened in early 1996, actually... can't you tell?
Well, some years ago an acquiantance of mine was an accident investigator for my Countys fire department.
Yeah, "A guy I know said so". That's how Urban Legends start off...
You can't be serious, right? This must be an experimental troll to test public gullibility...
The resaon being, many people are killed outright when their car crashes, but many more are only injured, or have no serious injuries but are pinned into their car by their seat belts, and are burned to death if a fire occurs.
That doesn't make any sense. There's a standup comic with a decent routine based on the stupidity of that claim.
"Oh no! My wrecked car is on fire! The flames will engulf me in moments! I'd crawl away, but this accursed seatbelt binds me into the fatal seat. If only there was some quick way I could release it... some kind of
button I could press to open the belt! But it's not to be. Goodbye cruel world!"
In real life, if your car crashes and catches fire, you're more likely to survive with a seatbelt on. The seatbelt will reduce the chances of your being knocked unconcious or breaking bones in the collision, which leaves you mobile, and able to get out of the fire.
Some people underestimate the damage that can be inflicted by even a low speed collision. Just measure how fast you can sprint- 20, 25 miles per hour? - and then imagine what would happen if you ran into a steel wall at full speed. Taking a hit like that will stun you for longer than it takes to disconnect a seatbelt.
1. The Hulkster is a blond actor who grappled with The Undertaker and Macho Randy Savage. The Incredible Hulk is really Dr. Bruce Banner, transformed by a secret military accident.
2. Grog or Gronk or whoever did these posts much better, years ago.
3. Hint: Try MORE CAPS. The boldface isn't enough to get the YELLING across.
mate with other improved offspring? They can't unless it is mandated.
They don't need to, because the children of a "normal" partner can themselves be enhanced. And the children WILL inherit the parent's attitudes towards genetic engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know the reason for why they got rid of the name/date requirements?
To better match the new spirit of copyright law, which is "forever minus 1 day".
Absolute nonsense. Lilo and Stitch was their most recent film.
Absolutely wrong. After Lilo and Stich, there was Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, and Home On The Range.
that Disney has published several DVDs and a made television show from it.
Uh, Disney does that with everything they can. They did that with Hercules! Doesn't mean the first movie was really much good.
Disney kept the animators employed for a whole year before firing the entire studio.
Which just goes to show you how hard Disney tried to keep the animation studio going, even after it was no longer worth it.
Oh, and they were so concerned about wasting money that they flushed the project they were
Because it had become abundantly clear that viewers simply didn't want to pay for feature length theatrical cartoons anymore.They know the movie wasn't going to be substantially more appealing than Home On The Range had been, so they had no reason to think it would sell any more tickets.
working on (and all the money that had been spent) down a toilet.
Not the first time they've had to discard something that just wasn't coming together. One cartoon had 300 minutes animated from 69 to 81, and it was totally abandoned.
Really? There are 400 animation studios in Japan.
If I told you that retired adults didn't like to read comic books, would you throw manga at me? I thought the USA-centric context was quite clear. The Japanese marketplace isn't relevant towards Disney's business.
And anyway, anime movies are a niche market in Japan, too. It's mainstream on TV, but in theaters it's all either G-rated toy ads, a limited release otaku-attractor (based on a popular TV/OAV) or something from Ghilbi (but not more than once every 3 years).
Yeah, like a writer. There are eight shelves of anime at Best Buy.
Funny, because a lot of anime is in dire need of a good writer- especially if you just sample from Best Buy, where anime is divided into Dragonball clones and Pokemon clones.
What is the advantage of carrying two different devices?
Battery life. When you get caught up in a game with color + sound, you won't lose phone reception just because you forgot to pay attention to the battery meter.
Of course, this is the argument to buy phone + Gameboy, not phone + PDA.
This is DC, so there is no possible periodic relief as with AC, where the voltage goes thru zero every 100 or 120 times a second -- this is a steady continuous current. The man will most likely fall over once his leg muscles, already damaged, have seized,
Yes, it's DC, which means that your muscles don't seize- they convulse, throwing you in one direction or another. That may wind up pushing you back from the rail, or knocking you over to fall ontop of it. The pause between peaks of AC cannot be considered "periodic relief", because human nerves cannot respond in the 2 milliseconds of reduced power.
For the same voltage and current, AC is more dangerous than DC, because the alternation causes the paralyzed victim to continue touching the wires for longer. AC shocks you in place; DC blasts you away.
your own links show there has never been a single case of a cell phone causing an explosion
They do not show that. Showing that would be nearly impossible, without listing the cause of every single explosion, ever. (The usual "abscense of evidence for evidence of abscense" fallacy)
Furthermore, the question was not "Has it ever happened?" but "cell phones cannot cause explosions"... and it fact, if a person specifically wanted to, it would be easy to re-wire a cellphone to spark an explosion.
Disney laid off hundreds upon hundreds of totally irreplaceable feature animators over the past few years, most recently in Florida. These people were almost directly responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the company. But, they're too expensive.
Your charges are entirely backward. Due to a sense of loyalty, tradition, and pride, Disney kept those artists employed long after they ceased to be profitable.
Audiences today just don't like to watch untextured, cell-based cartoons anymore. The last hugely successful cell-based film was Lion King in 1994. Then Toy Story came out, and the downward slide began. Disney's final cartoon, Home On the Range, was not a bad movie, but it made no money, because today's viewers want something else.
It's been on Slashdot ever since someone needed a comparator to make the four-wheeled Segway appear relatively sensible.
It is impossible for the indexer to look at files that I can't access through a normal way (via explorer).
Your message is insufficient to prove that.
If Google Desktop was installed by an administrator, then it could've possibly installed a system-level DLL which that program can be using to look into forbidden files, without opening them directly itself.
Any program which had admin privs at installation could've kept them, meaning it can potentially violate file-access controls whenever the program is later run by a normal user. That's why I don't approve of videogame installers that require admin rights.
I haven't installed Google Desktop though, so I don't know if it requires administrator install- but I think most people install that way anyhow.
Chances are your linux installation is creating files that are world readable by default.
An exactly which Linux distros do you think have a +o umask? Linspire? Come on...
I thought you were arguing that it was too fuzzy of a standard...which is it?
And to expand:
You justify a medically-necessary abortion as similar to a killing in self-defense. That's fine reasoning that almost no one will dispute.
But to say that mental health also qualifies as a medical necessity implies that I can kill a man if he's driving me crazy ("Sherrif, I had to kill him, to defend my fragile ego").
I thought you were arguing that it was too fuzzy of a standard...which is it?
Why do you bother typing so much if you won't even pay a little attention to the posts you're responding to? (I'm reminded of Karl Rove's fondness for willfully misunderstanding Kerry to attack him on positions he doesn't even hold)
As I PLAINLY stated, classifying mental health as a medical risk that can justify abortion is excessively fuzzy.
Not in Texas in 1973 she couldn't- and read the majority opinion of SCOTUS sometime-
Funny, that's exactly what I just read to make sure I was right that her abortion was not needed for her own health.
I see no difference between the two morally- when one patient is less likely to survive than the other, it's perfectly legal to remove life support from the one (killing him) to give organs to the other.
You may think it's moral, but it is 100% illegal.
Ever hear of Shrapnel?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with his influential career. There have been no large-scale serious shrapnel casualties suffered by US troops since the pullout from Vietnam.
And I'd still really enjoy seeing a citation of any incident where a doctor allowed one victim to die so his veins could be grafted into another.
You are so full of horse-crap. You are aware that the Republican party, as it was first conceived, was identical to the current Libertarian party? They were the staunch supporters of government non-interventionism.
Hmmm... let's think... What was the first action taken by the Republican party once it reached national office?
Oh yes! The Civil War- the single largest government intervention in the history of the USA.
Don't expect me to agree wholeheartedly with the LP nationals.
I don't really care about what your opinions are. This thread is about Mike Badnarik, who belongs to the LP.
You don't know the first thing about Libertarians.
No. It's you who doesn't understand. You're having this big argument and using words without even knowing what they mean. The core of your problem seems to be the belief that "Libertarian" and "libertarian" are synonyms.
They are not! A "Libertarian" (capital L) is an adherent of the Libertarian Party, which believes in triming down the functions of government to a minimal sliver. A lower-cased "libertarian" is someone who supports the ideals of personal liberty.
For comparison, ask yourself if "democrat" means the same thing as "Democrat". Obviously, they're different- the first one is a person who supports rule by the people, and the second is the member of one of the USA's two large political parties.
You need to learn about capital letters and proper nouns. Capitalizing an existing word makes it into a name that refers to a specific person or group, which can have entirely different principles than the original word it's based on. (For extra credit, figure out the difference between "windows" and "Windows")
Now that that's cleared up, the rest of your posts are meaningless, because you're arguing against a position that only existed in your imagination.
In a properly functioning republic, the word government can be replaced by the people.
False. The only way that could be true is if you use "properly functioning" as a synonym for "democratic".
In a properly functioning communist state, the word government can be replaced by the people.
True, because communism is an economic system, not a political one.
You are a political moron.
You are a linguistic ignoramus.
It's quite common in Europe to have laws that are this fuzzy
And what else is quite common in Europe? Legal abortion.
And since not every situation is forseeable; such laws often fail.
Correct. Overly simplistic laws cause unfairness. And "Abortion is murder, unless it's self-defense" is a simplistic standard.
for legalizing abortion has nothing to do with birth control at all- it has to do with saving women's lives.
Saving lives by preventing (or "controlling") a risky birth. Birth control.
The reason given in Roe V. Wade for legalizing abortion has nothing to do with birth control at all- it has to do with saving women's lives.
Completely wrong. Jane Roe's health was in no way endangered by her pregnancy. If it had been, then she could've gotten an abortion easily, without the need for the lawsuit.
It was the surgeon's duty to save the man that he could- and let the other one die. That's the very DEFINITION of triage-
Yes, that's "triage" alright. Which just confirms my suspicion that you had NO IDEA what you typed earlier. You said a doctor could KILL one man to TAKE HIS ORGANS and give them TO ANOTHER.
Apparently you didn't mean to say that, but you did. (Here's the clause again, for reference: "a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft")
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the invasions of Grenada and Panama- we've been in plenty of large scale battles in the last 50 years. Where have you been?
Aortic grafting techniques were not available to emergency physicians until after the Vietnam war concluded. (They had been used as an experimental technique by occasional specialists, but not in urgent situations).
Post-Vietnam, the USA military has not engaged in any large battles- if you define "battle" as a two-sided conflict, instead of a turkey-shoot like some of the 800:1 ratio engagements of ODS.
(There have been occasional incidents where large numbers of US troops have been killed/wounded in a short time, but those were based on a large explosion or airplane crash, which unlike small arms fire, are unlikely to produce treatable cardiac damage)
I've been quite strong about pointing out that there are only two ways out of this war Bush has gotten us into: Genocide and surrender.
I read that journal. It is based on a completely different definition of "surrender" than used in the English language. (Hint: Although the USA didn't win in Vietnam, they didn't surrender either)
Heaven forbid that legislators actually do the right thing for the people they represent
If you're a California legislator, then the (majority of) the people you represent DO want Kerry to win, and they want you to support that interest and give him as many electoral votes as possible.
Voting for proportionate EV allocation means doing the right thing for the whole of the country, at the expense of your own state.
Being a Libertarian is about recognizing that, currently, large corporations have an advantage over any competition due to legal government protection.
Oh, and that's the central and defining concept of the Green Party.
In the USA, the Libertarian Party is the most pro-corporate, and the Greens are the least. The Republicans are in the middle, and the Democrats are very slightly less corporate than them (differing mainly in which corporations they prefer).
You must be working from a different definition of "Libertarian" than the Libertarian Party is. In fact, what you've just described is really the Constitution Party (obviously).
The Libertarian Party does NOT support all of the Constitution. They don't even agree with most of it.
In fact, the LP is quite unique in USA politics, because the Republicans, Democrats, Reforms, Greens, and Constituionalists are all democratic, while the LP is undemocratic.
They don't like to bring up the fact that they're undemocratic, and that's fair, because they'll never advance their agenda to the point where it matters. But just consider this quote:
Recall that in a democracy, the word "government" can be replaced by "people". Read the quote making that substitution, and it becomes more sinister. Sometimes the needs of the many DO outweigh the property of the few, but the LP denies that.
Yes. Those with the most money will always have the most power.
No. In a democratic capitalist society, there are two sources of power: money and votes. Money is more directly useful in daily life, and money can influence and twist voter's opinions, but if the rich become truely abusive, then we can fall back to votes to take care of them.
In a Libertarian country, money is the only power. When the rich become too dominant, and there is no way to vote against them, then the only remaining option is violent revolution.
Further, if they are filling out paper work and providing identification information you can actually run a background check to see who they are.
Yes, because the FBI has great records on the legal and religious background of 50 million Mexican teenagers.
honest people had to hide form a corrupt government
Regardless of the corruptness of the other party, to lie or mislead is still dishonest.
an honest person means you can't lie, instead of it meaning you don't want to.
Both are wrong. Honesty means you don't lie, even when you want to.
As for the rest, you're totally out of your gourd. How is assault with toxic chemicals not still assault? How is a misleading contract and a defective product not fraud?
If you can't figure out the answers yourself, you're hazardously naive.
Read some USA history. Assault and fraud have been illegal for hundreds of years, yet in the 20th century pollution and defective products were legal until specific new laws were created to combat it.
Something that's not forceful and not fraudulent can still be not fair.
About the only times they can get away with xeing complete schmucks and alienating their own customers are when they have government-granted protection from the consequences
Again, you show an astounding historical ignorance, well below even the maligned standards of USA public schooling.
Monopolies WILL happen, even without government aid. But the Libertarian Party, by principle, can never act against a monopolist. That means governance will be ceded to the next company which emerges as a natural monopoly.
(There's nothing wrong with supporting the LP if it's with the understanding that their views will never achieve near dominance, and you only want to encourage a push in that direction)
government-granted monopoly
That's more ignorance, although of a more excusable variety, because fewer people are really aware of what "government" is. "Government" is that which "governs". If that entity which you today label "government" abdicates many of its functions, they will be taken up by other, commercial operations- meaning corporations become the new government.
No the Libertarian party is NOT pro corporate.
Do some experiments. Find any specific existing law which is considered anti-corporate, and then "research" the Libertarian Party position on that law.
Unless it's straight-out corp welfware, the LP is against it. Far more laws and regulations are anti-corporate than are anti-individual. Since the LP wants to remove most all laws, they are then more pro-corp than pro-individual.
I do know we STARTED out that way, so I say why not try it again?
"It didn't work the first time, so let's try it again!"
Bush gets replaced by an orangutan.
That happened in early 1996, actually... can't you tell?
A firewall and virus scanner are important to a Windows box running well (or at all).
And so is a web browser. Without it you can't get drivers and patches, and the system will work poorly and vulnerably.
Yeah, "A guy I know said so". That's how Urban Legends start off...
You can't be serious, right? This must be an experimental troll to test public gullibility...
The resaon being, many people are killed outright when their car crashes, but many more are only injured, or have no serious injuries but are pinned into their car by their seat belts, and are burned to death if a fire occurs.
That doesn't make any sense. There's a standup comic with a decent routine based on the stupidity of that claim.
In real life, if your car crashes and catches fire, you're more likely to survive with a seatbelt on. The seatbelt will reduce the chances of your being knocked unconcious or breaking bones in the collision, which leaves you mobile, and able to get out of the fire.
Some people underestimate the damage that can be inflicted by even a low speed collision. Just measure how fast you can sprint- 20, 25 miles per hour? - and then imagine what would happen if you ran into a steel wall at full speed. Taking a hit like that will stun you for longer than it takes to disconnect a seatbelt.
1. The Hulkster is a blond actor who grappled with The Undertaker and Macho Randy Savage. The Incredible Hulk is really Dr. Bruce Banner, transformed by a secret military accident.
2. Grog or Gronk or whoever did these posts much better, years ago.
3. Hint: Try MORE CAPS. The boldface isn't enough to get the YELLING across.
mate with other improved offspring? They can't unless it is mandated.
They don't need to, because the children of a "normal" partner can themselves be enhanced. And the children WILL inherit the parent's attitudes towards genetic engineering.