Isn't it a criminal offense to be topless in public?
I can't come up with words to express how appalled I am for the disdain these people have for families.
After seeing something like that I could care less about nano pants, our society is more at risk of this type of thought spreading than it ever would be of nano technology taking over.
" There are no solid conclusions among all scientist"
Uh-huh. This is how the wacko left pulls this off: they get a few of their idiot minions with online Ph.D.s (or some isolated rejects from the tenure pool) to call themselves scientists. Then they completely ignore scientific method and start polluting the scientific pool with untestable hypotheses. Soon, it's difficult to get a consensus "among all scientist" because a percentage of them are not even legit scientists.
Does air pollution help in the fight against global warming?
Maybe the earth is getting hotter due to the sun getting hotter.
Maybe I'll bump up my Sun Screen UV Factor and buy a darker pair of Oakley's next time a clean air act is passed.
AS for India's being secular... isn't USA supposed to be the same ? Heck it is supposed to treat blacks and whites equally. India to its credit has had a Muslim president and a female prime minister. When was the last time US could boast of either or those or a black heading the country ? And despite the declarations of equality and black and whites peacefully coexisting, there have been riots between these two factions often enough.
The USA is very secular. The people elect leaders that closely represent their value systems, which comprise a majority of Christian leaders. But that doesn't mean the majority of the society is powerless over their elected officials. Caucasians in the United States don't have explicit government protections like the minority races. "Secular" isn't as simple as define protections for individual races. Secularism derives off of Idealism with the intent of not allowing any one organized religion or racial preference or {insert perceived oppression here} be imposed upon the people. Secularism is also a checks and balances for all forms of government. I think the problem we are seeing today however is that "Atheists" are attempting to call themselves "Secularists" and are attempting to redefine Secularism as their belief system in order to impose their beliefs on the rest of organized religion. Atheism is a form of disorganized religion, which can't be defined because the object of worship is Self and reality is defined as Self's perception and everyone is different. So, Secularism isn't just a system of checks and balances for racial discrimination, its also a system of checks and balances for religious discrimination and helps prevent governments from becoming totalitarian in any facet of life or government.
Heck in the light of current events I would go as far as to say, USA is ruled by a fundamentalst Christian Government. Care to dispute that ? who cares ?
Who cares? A majority of the natioan apparently. These are elected officials. And they don't "Rule" in the sense that the government can hand down a law without the accountability of the people of the nation. If a "Fundamentalist Christian" were "ruling", butt sex (Read Leviticus 20:13) and abortion would be immediately outlawed. I'll grant you that our elected officials are moving in this direction, but our system of government holds our elected officials accountable.
"We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments." My position stands unopposed by you with a single fact.
Nice trick, you want someone else to prove that something doesn't exist. It is near impossible. The burden of proving something does exist lies on you. The only suspect party that the article even mentions is SouthWest Airlines who isn't producing the copy of the law. Is it their responsibility to provide copies or obey the law? If lawsuits weren't such a problem, Hotels, Car Rental agencies and the rest wouldn't be forced to require identification. The problem lies in the moral decline of the people, not the policies of government. The article isn't clear whether Mr. Gilmore has sought an attorney to provide him with the law itself. I don't get the impression that Mr. Gilmore is working hard at it. If I were the airline I'd probably blow this political activist off as well. Its not their responsibility to provide him the law; rather, they are responsible for obeying it.
The last statement you make, We do live in 1984. Here's your chance, present your evidence. You make a bunch of claims here with nothing to back them up. Your only proof that a secret law exists is that an airline can't produce a copy of the law, which only proves that the airline can't produce a copy of the law. It is not evidence that indicates any wrongdoing or secrecy from the government. The article makes no mention that any attempt has been made to any other agency to produce the law. It's as if Mr. Gilmore is arguing that someone is negligent when the only indication of negligence I see is his own. How irresponsible of him.
The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no.
Again, which facts? And for goodness sake, are you saying you want our constitution to protect a non-citizen? If so, who supports a police state here? What a ridiculous claim to make that the President doesn't support the constitution....
You are arguing with a world of people and asking for their trust, yet you don't present any evidence that supports your point. I ask that you be intellectually honest with the Slashdot readership.
Several people in the Bible neared the 1k mark.link
Until God put a 120 year cap on the life of a human. link
Just after the flood, the life span of people began to drastically decrease with the last person to live longer than 120 years being Jacob(Israel). Moses lived to be 120.
I used to think the bible was dubious, until I studied it.
How about the first samples taken chronilogically in the east coast where the polls were opened first. Normally heavily leaning Democrat. Then the second sample was taken later in the day when the rest of the nation began to vote (aka: When those kook conservatives started voting) and surprisingly(or not?) a BIG swing in support for Bush began and continued that way through the rest of the night. I bet you if there were a third sample later in the day it'd be heavily Kerry, seeing in how the "left" coast results would come in last.
1) Why do we have veterans on both sides of the aisle that say 'X' war was necessary or unnecessary?
2) They know the true costs of war. Which veteran? The one that has actually seen war and was injured in it? The one that was actually in battle and saved other soldiers' lives? The one that comes home only serving 25% of their designated tour and attempts to politically stop the war? The one that trains to be a soldier but never actually makes it to the war who has made the decisions on 2 wars previously?
How about the decorated commander that just retired as a 45 year combat veteran who doesn't fear war at all. His view has more credibility when it comes to the true costs of war, but will he know whether its really necessary?
3) Are soldiers that have served on the front lines who have seen the horrors of war to be trusted? There are LOTS and LOTS of psychological consequences of war. That candidate may avoid war when it is totally necessary, because he's basing his decision of an atrocity that he saw vs relieving the suffering of a people like the Jews for instance.
My point is this; no candidate will know the "true costs" or consequences of any war. They can calculate up front what "might" happen, but the veteran on the opposite side of the battlefield is calculating also and in the end the struggle ends up somewhere entirely different than where the "veteran" thought it might. No one can see the future. I'd think someone serving in the government for the past 20 years would have better knowledge than a soldier that served in 1 tour of duty. Both candidates fit that description.
LAST JUNE, SCIENTISTS WERE THRILLED when NASA's Cassini probe successfully began orbiting Saturn after a 3.5-billion-kilometer, seven-year journey across the solar system. The 6-ton spacecraft immediately started returning spectacular pictures of the planet
3.5 Billion km Divided by 7 Years Divided by 365 Days Divided by 24 Hours gives you the aproximate velocity at which Cassini was travelling for the last 7 years in Km/h
Travel Velocity: 2,976,190.48 Km/h Speed of Light: 1,079,252,849.00 Km/h(link)
Using the equation: KE = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared (link) we get
Mass: 1 ton = 907.18474 kg - 6 tons = 5443.10844 kg (Ton Conversion Number Link) Velocity: 2,976,190,476 m/h is = 178,571,428,560 m/s
KE = 0.5 * (5443.10844) * (178,571,428,560.0)^2 = 86,784,254,453,177,329,714,641,182.592 Joules 8.68 x 10 25 J (Amount of energy it takes for Cassini to go that fast)? Can someone help me with this? If so, how is this accomplished? 9.53 x 10 19 J (Consumption of energy by the USA in 1995) (link)
Why would this load of crap from Drudge surprise anyone, and why would anyone pay attention to it?
Why do you think FoxNews is dwarfing all of the Liberal spewers in ratings? Could it be because they are closer to the middle than the rest and are threatening to lean right? Fox definately isn't fair and balanced, it is however more balanced than the rest and that's why it's more popular.
It might also be why littlegreenfootballs' web server broke slashdots' hit records once Drudge linked them during the RatherGate scandal. Conservatism is on the rise.
I'm sure if most/. subscribers had their way, they'd mod FoxNews as a Troll. They don't like anyone talking unless its someone that holds their same opinion.
Produced and directed by John Kerry himself. Featuring this years candidate for president/incumbent president playing the role of national morality savior. Featuring the Kerry twins. A wildly amusing comedy portraying George Bush as a washed up old stuttering cowboy not knowing which Kerry to shoot. With a surprise appearance by Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. It's sure to please your liberal republicrat and conservative demican friends.
"They have absolutely no right to use our tax dollars for what is effectively a very expensive television commercial for Bush and Kerry," Hess told reporters.
The vice presidential debate in Cleveland tremendously helped the local economy and provided a marketing engine for Cleveland. Arizona State has a ton to gain from using this debate to market itself and get its name out there. They are merely hosting a presidential election event and aren't enforcing the rules of the contracts between the candidates. The whole purpose of this lawsuit is political in nature to get us lemmings talking about the viability of more than 2 parties. To attack Arizona for this is ridiculous. It only hurts the people there. This is an enormous commercial for the university.
The real test of whether the Uni is really promoting the two-party system, will be in whether they cancel, or go ahead with the Libertarian candidate included. I sure hope they are not swayed by this election year third party political ploys.
My position, if anyone was wondering, is that the party system should be abolished and the people should merely focus on the issues rather than political spin like this.
Today, the Online Journalism Review details a potential conservative bias in the site's algorithm
Conservatives probably see articles like the following and start sniffing around for conspiracy. Whether a conspiracy exists or not. I'm starting to see a common thread amongst conservatives of boycotting orginizations that even hint liberal ideals. As a conservative myself I see a large movement away from the major media by most of my conservative friends around the nation and world due to "media bias" and its presentation of liberal ideals. (I'm probably redudant here.)
The advent of the internet, blogs, and talk radio allow this to happen. It saddens me because I feel that there hasn't been substantive debate in over a decade because both "new" and "old" media has bias and both camps are clinging on to the media that shares their views and shuns out the opposition.
I'm longing to have a healthy debate about issues rather than a shouting match where both people leave mad feeling more "right" than when they began.
Matthew 5:
(36) You have heard that it was said, '(37) YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman (38) with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."(39) If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into (40) hell.Read it yourself
I've listened to a bunch of broken men that are addicted to porn and can't escape it. It's a sad state because it causes them to lie and do things they don't want to, just like any other drug. Drugs are outlawed, so should porn. It causes pain and suffering and can so destroy a man's self-esteem that it can make him suicidal.
I'm sure this argument is going to be argued as the need to defend "Men's choice". I have never heard a woman say, 'I sure wish my husband would look at porn more.' The only time I've heard a woman talk about being OK with porn they use words like, 'I don't mind it' or 'I would rather he not, but it's just what men choose' which implies she has a problem with it, but is willing to look past it because she wants to love the person. Pornography turns the woman into an object not only on the (choose your media), but it creeps into the man's overall view of a woman. From just about any book about marriage that you read, women want to be people, not objects.
It's a sad day when we have not been strong enough as a people to resist such a detestable media which causes leaders to have to take radical steps to protect the populace.
Women,
I urge you to stand against pornography. Know that if your husband or boyfriend has a habit of looking at pornography, it is much like a drug that infects the mind of your loved one. Most likely he doesn't understand how it impacts you and your feelings. He's been taught in recent years that it's perfectly OK to look at it. I urge you to share the full extent of your feelings with your significant other about how bad it makes you feel and hope that this somehow causes them to respond by seeking freedom from this addiction. Also know that if you do stand against it and he doesn't respond it's because he's caught in a nasty habit. Have pitty on him and love him. If you have been objectified and aren't a person in your husband's eyes, it might be because he looks at porn.
Whose responsibility is it to keep people from abusing these things? The government's or the individual with the problem? You'd argue that alcohol should also be illegal? Do you not remember how that went the first time it was tried?
Drinking irresponsibly damages lives other than your own. Those people should be, and are being held accountable for their actions while drunk. I applaud the US Government for enforcing these laws. Would I make drinking alchohol illegal? No, I would put tight controls on it's sales and enforce strict laws upon people who abuse it. (Clap) The people have decided pretty well here.
Speak for yourself. What authority do you have to make this claim about every woman who has had an abortion? In what way does abortion destroy a woman's life or future? You'd argue that abortion should be illegal? What about the oft-mentioned rape cases? Do you think that being forced to have the child of a rapist would be less traumatic than abortion?
You would take a human's life in order that a woman that was brutalized by a rapist "might" have a less tramatic life??? The woman that was raped is going to have severe mental trama already, but killing an innocent child should not be added to the list. There are alternate avenues such as adoption that the mother can choose. It doesn't have to be ending someone elses life.
Speak for yourself.
There has to be someone defending the child's right to live. I'm honored that I can use my speech to do it. Someone has to communicate the truth and if noone does another child and mother will be traumatized by a group of society that is telling them that it's OK to murder.
As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you.
Where do you draw the line? Should a murderer be able to choose what happens to him if he's an adult? You'd probably argue that a murder is a crime worthy of limiting the rights of the invidividual who commits the crime. Where do you draw the line on crimes worthy of limiting rights? Would you rather leave the enforcement of the law up to the people? The US is comprised of a majority Christians. You'd leave it up to us to determine law and enforce it?
Especially when it comes to gambling, the purchase of adult beverages, and the premature ending of pregnancy.
"gambling" destroys lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.
"adult beverages" destroy lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.
"premature ending of pregnancy" destroys a premature child's life and causes severe mental trauma on the mother (arguably destroying her life/future)- whenever it happens
What's next? Is suicide going to be defined as "premature torment escape", because "life sucks"?
I've heard politicians recently use the same terms and label the GOP "parents" because they want to provide the American public with what it desires which is protections from dangerous activities. These critical politicians assert that the motivation of the GOP is self-interest. It astonishes me that someone would say that the government is playing parent when the majority of the country would vote for the legislation they are introducing.
What kind of democracy would we have if the majority was influenced by a small minority that is bent on self-sacrifice, because they really "feel" like it's the right thing to do.
It seems to me like there are a whole group of people in this nation who are bent on loosening the moral fiber that has driven the nation to success because they don't want to be held responsble for other people's pain caused by their gambling, adult beverages, and abortion. I guess hurting and killing other people should be legal because a small few "feel" like it's the right thing to do.
Apple's a hardware company first, using the software to help sell the hardware.
Yet they sell a 100 dollar OS upgrade and have software companies refusing to continue development on their platform because they are being beaten out of the market by Apple's version of the same product. I believe Apple wants to be seen as a hardware company still, but are continually moving towards a total solutions provider.
It always confused me when people said Apple was a competitor to M$ when M$ was a software solutions provider and Apple was a hardware solutions provider.
I'm agreeing with you, but it seems their vision is in flux lately and that Apple might be attempting to move toward adding a software sales solution provider as well as hardware.
However, I start to wonder where your benefit is. You are - out of principle - not making any money out of this, because it is open-source and you and your buddies insist that it must be absolutely free. So you are putting all of that time and energy into this project for what? Fame? To found a career? Come on.
The problem I see here is that this fellow's "god" is the "god" of money. His tone clearly throughout his letter is one of "if it don't make dollars, it don't make sense".
As a software developer I donate a lot of my time and software development knowledge to benefit other people. Not only can the open-source community provide software solutions to low income people, but also they can improve their skill on the software that they write.
So let me respond.
Dear Clemens,
I take pride in my abilities as a software developer and look for every opportunity to benefit someone else. I gain a greater understanding of software development processes and how to develop software by engaging in these open-source projects. I benefit in the areas of character development, soft-skills development, and general software development experience. The benefit is not only mine as it would be if I were to only create a self-interested and proprietary solution; rather, the benefit now falls to someone less fortunate than myself be it a college student that can't afford the latest offerings from the software giants or government institutions that are trying to carve away at their computer budget in order to focus on their bottom line. I develop free open-source software to benefit other people. I hope to have given you some insight into the reasoning I have used to work on an open-source team in my spare time.
Sincerely,
follower_of_christ
If you asked those 95% why they believe and they all told you they personally have experienced God, would you still doubt? Do you think more than 95% buy into the theory of dark matter?
I used to think I needed God to crack open the sky and smack me upside the head for me to believe. Then he graced me with his presence. So much so that if I were to doubt again it would really stem from me running away from the responsibility of living as a respectable human being and attaching myself to the short term benefits of sin. I've been unhappy at times, but have experienced more joy than I could have ever imagined.
I would love to see the ESA, China, Japan, India, England, or whoever else provide the US with more of the same competition. I believe it will poke at the pride that the US public and motivate us to work harder and be more ethical. Without ethics/integrity a society stagnates (As we are seeing today). With competition like this the US public has a reason to rally and refine itself to attempt to be the best. WIthout this competition we stagnate.
I applaud the rest of the world for becoming competitors in the space rafe and giving the US a new determination.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't come up with words to express how appalled I am for the disdain these people have for families.
After seeing something like that I could care less about nano pants, our society is more at risk of this type of thought spreading than it ever would be of nano technology taking over.
Oh, almost forgot; they have almost no original thoughts, preferring to copy from others. :o)
Uh-huh. This is how the wacko left pulls this off: they get a few of their idiot minions with online Ph.D.s (or some isolated rejects from the tenure pool) to call themselves scientists. Then they completely ignore scientific method and start polluting the scientific pool with untestable hypotheses. Soon, it's difficult to get a consensus "among all scientist" because a percentage of them are not even legit scientists.
Does air pollution help in the fight against global warming?
Maybe the earth is getting hotter due to the sun getting hotter.
Maybe I'll bump up my Sun Screen UV Factor and buy a darker pair of Oakley's next time a clean air act is passed.
Or do you think the Judiciary would slap that down?
The USA is very secular. The people elect leaders that closely represent their value systems, which comprise a majority of Christian leaders. But that doesn't mean the majority of the society is powerless over their elected officials. Caucasians in the United States don't have explicit government protections like the minority races. "Secular" isn't as simple as define protections for individual races. Secularism derives off of Idealism with the intent of not allowing any one organized religion or racial preference or {insert perceived oppression here} be imposed upon the people. Secularism is also a checks and balances for all forms of government. I think the problem we are seeing today however is that "Atheists" are attempting to call themselves "Secularists" and are attempting to redefine Secularism as their belief system in order to impose their beliefs on the rest of organized religion. Atheism is a form of disorganized religion, which can't be defined because the object of worship is Self and reality is defined as Self's perception and everyone is different. So, Secularism isn't just a system of checks and balances for racial discrimination, its also a system of checks and balances for religious discrimination and helps prevent governments from becoming totalitarian in any facet of life or government.
Heck in the light of current events I would go as far as to say, USA is ruled by a fundamentalst Christian Government. Care to dispute that ? who cares ?
Who cares? A majority of the natioan apparently. These are elected officials. And they don't "Rule" in the sense that the government can hand down a law without the accountability of the people of the nation. If a "Fundamentalist Christian" were "ruling", butt sex (Read Leviticus 20:13) and abortion would be immediately outlawed. I'll grant you that our elected officials are moving in this direction, but our system of government holds our elected officials accountable.
Nice trick, you want someone else to prove that something doesn't exist. It is near impossible. The burden of proving something does exist lies on you. The only suspect party that the article even mentions is SouthWest Airlines who isn't producing the copy of the law. Is it their responsibility to provide copies or obey the law? If lawsuits weren't such a problem, Hotels, Car Rental agencies and the rest wouldn't be forced to require identification. The problem lies in the moral decline of the people, not the policies of government. The article isn't clear whether Mr. Gilmore has sought an attorney to provide him with the law itself. I don't get the impression that Mr. Gilmore is working hard at it. If I were the airline I'd probably blow this political activist off as well. Its not their responsibility to provide him the law; rather, they are responsible for obeying it.
The last statement you make, We do live in 1984.
Here's your chance, present your evidence. You make a bunch of claims here with nothing to back them up. Your only proof that a secret law exists is that an airline can't produce a copy of the law, which only proves that the airline can't produce a copy of the law. It is not evidence that indicates any wrongdoing or secrecy from the government. The article makes no mention that any attempt has been made to any other agency to produce the law. It's as if Mr. Gilmore is arguing that someone is negligent when the only indication of negligence I see is his own. How irresponsible of him.
The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no.
Again, which facts? And for goodness sake, are you saying you want our constitution to protect a non-citizen? If so, who supports a police state here? What a ridiculous claim to make that the President doesn't support the constitution....
You are arguing with a world of people and asking for their trust, yet you don't present any evidence that supports your point. I ask that you be intellectually honest with the Slashdot readership.
Thought you might find this interesting. link
Until God put a 120 year cap on the life of a human. link
Just after the flood, the life span of people began to drastically decrease with the last person to live longer than 120 years being Jacob(Israel). Moses lived to be 120.
I used to think the bible was dubious, until I studied it.
How about the first samples taken chronilogically in the east coast where the polls were opened first. Normally heavily leaning Democrat. Then the second sample was taken later in the day when the rest of the nation began to vote (aka: When those kook conservatives started voting) and surprisingly(or not?) a BIG swing in support for Bush began and continued that way through the rest of the night. I bet you if there were a third sample later in the day it'd be heavily Kerry, seeing in how the "left" coast results would come in last.
2) They know the true costs of war.
Which veteran? The one that has actually seen war and was injured in it? The one that was actually in battle and saved other soldiers' lives? The one that comes home only serving 25% of their designated tour and attempts to politically stop the war? The one that trains to be a soldier but never actually makes it to the war who has made the decisions on 2 wars previously? How about the decorated commander that just retired as a 45 year combat veteran who doesn't fear war at all. His view has more credibility when it comes to the true costs of war, but will he know whether its really necessary?
3) Are soldiers that have served on the front lines who have seen the horrors of war to be trusted? There are LOTS and LOTS of psychological consequences of war. That candidate may avoid war when it is totally necessary, because he's basing his decision of an atrocity that he saw vs relieving the suffering of a people like the Jews for instance.
My point is this; no candidate will know the "true costs" or consequences of any war. They can calculate up front what "might" happen, but the veteran on the opposite side of the battlefield is calculating also and in the end the struggle ends up somewhere entirely different than where the "veteran" thought it might. No one can see the future. I'd think someone serving in the government for the past 20 years would have better knowledge than a soldier that served in 1 tour of duty. Both candidates fit that description.
3.5 Billion km Divided by 7 Years Divided by 365 Days Divided by 24 Hours gives you the aproximate velocity at which Cassini was travelling for the last 7 years in Km/h
Travel Velocity: 2,976,190.48 Km/h
Speed of Light: 1,079,252,849.00 Km/h(link)
Using the equation: KE = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared (link) we get
Mass: 1 ton = 907.18474 kg - 6 tons = 5443.10844 kg (Ton Conversion Number Link)
Velocity: 2,976,190,476 m/h is = 178,571,428,560 m/s
KE = 0.5 * (5443.10844) * (178,571,428,560.0)^2 = 86,784,254,453,177,329,714,641,182.592 Joules
8.68 x 10 25 J (Amount of energy it takes for Cassini to go that fast)? Can someone help me with this? If so, how is this accomplished?
9.53 x 10 19 J (Consumption of energy by the USA in 1995) (link)
Link
Link
Link
Why do you think FoxNews is dwarfing all of the Liberal spewers in ratings? Could it be because they are closer to the middle than the rest and are threatening to lean right? Fox definately isn't fair and balanced, it is however more balanced than the rest and that's why it's more popular.
It might also be why littlegreenfootballs' web server broke slashdots' hit records once Drudge linked them during the RatherGate scandal. Conservatism is on the rise.
I'm sure if most /. subscribers had their way, they'd mod FoxNews as a Troll. They don't like anyone talking unless its someone that holds their same opinion.
It's called Going Down.
Produced and directed by John Kerry himself.
Featuring this years candidate for president/incumbent president playing the role of national morality savior. Featuring the Kerry twins. A wildly amusing comedy portraying George Bush as a washed up old stuttering cowboy not knowing which Kerry to shoot. With a surprise appearance by Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. It's sure to please your liberal republicrat and conservative demican friends.
Price of admission one miscounted vote.
The vice presidential debate in Cleveland tremendously helped the local economy and provided a marketing engine for Cleveland. Arizona State has a ton to gain from using this debate to market itself and get its name out there. They are merely hosting a presidential election event and aren't enforcing the rules of the contracts between the candidates. The whole purpose of this lawsuit is political in nature to get us lemmings talking about the viability of more than 2 parties. To attack Arizona for this is ridiculous. It only hurts the people there. This is an enormous commercial for the university.
The real test of whether the Uni is really promoting the two-party system, will be in whether they cancel, or go ahead with the Libertarian candidate included.
I sure hope they are not swayed by this election year third party political ploys.
My position, if anyone was wondering, is that the party system should be abolished and the people should merely focus on the issues rather than political spin like this.
Conservatives probably see articles like the following and start sniffing around for conspiracy. Whether a conspiracy exists or not. I'm starting to see a common thread amongst conservatives of boycotting orginizations that even hint liberal ideals. As a conservative myself I see a large movement away from the major media by most of my conservative friends around the nation and world due to "media bias" and its presentation of liberal ideals. (I'm probably redudant here.)
The advent of the internet, blogs, and talk radio allow this to happen. It saddens me because I feel that there hasn't been substantive debate in over a decade because both "new" and "old" media has bias and both camps are clinging on to the media that shares their views and shuns out the opposition.
I'm longing to have a healthy debate about issues rather than a shouting match where both people leave mad feeling more "right" than when they began.
Article
Article
They all look, smell, feel, sound, and taste like...... rocks. But it takes faith to believe they appeared millions of years ago by random chance.
(36) You have heard that it was said, '(37) YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman (38) with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."(39) If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into (40) hell. Read it yourself
I've listened to a bunch of broken men that are addicted to porn and can't escape it. It's a sad state because it causes them to lie and do things they don't want to, just like any other drug. Drugs are outlawed, so should porn. It causes pain and suffering and can so destroy a man's self-esteem that it can make him suicidal.
I'm sure this argument is going to be argued as the need to defend "Men's choice". I have never heard a woman say, 'I sure wish my husband would look at porn more.' The only time I've heard a woman talk about being OK with porn they use words like, 'I don't mind it' or 'I would rather he not, but it's just what men choose' which implies she has a problem with it, but is willing to look past it because she wants to love the person. Pornography turns the woman into an object not only on the (choose your media), but it creeps into the man's overall view of a woman. From just about any book about marriage that you read, women want to be people, not objects.
It's a sad day when we have not been strong enough as a people to resist such a detestable media which causes leaders to have to take radical steps to protect the populace.
Women,
I urge you to stand against pornography. Know that if your husband or boyfriend has a habit of looking at pornography, it is much like a drug that infects the mind of your loved one. Most likely he doesn't understand how it impacts you and your feelings. He's been taught in recent years that it's perfectly OK to look at it. I urge you to share the full extent of your feelings with your significant other about how bad it makes you feel and hope that this somehow causes them to respond by seeking freedom from this addiction. Also know that if you do stand against it and he doesn't respond it's because he's caught in a nasty habit. Have pitty on him and love him. If you have been objectified and aren't a person in your husband's eyes, it might be because he looks at porn.
Drinking irresponsibly damages lives other than your own. Those people should be, and are being held accountable for their actions while drunk. I applaud the US Government for enforcing these laws. Would I make drinking alchohol illegal? No, I would put tight controls on it's sales and enforce strict laws upon people who abuse it. (Clap) The people have decided pretty well here.
Speak for yourself. What authority do you have to make this claim about every woman who has had an abortion? In what way does abortion destroy a woman's life or future? You'd argue that abortion should be illegal? What about the oft-mentioned rape cases? Do you think that being forced to have the child of a rapist would be less traumatic than abortion?
You would take a human's life in order that a woman that was brutalized by a rapist "might" have a less tramatic life??? The woman that was raped is going to have severe mental trama already, but killing an innocent child should not be added to the list. There are alternate avenues such as adoption that the mother can choose. It doesn't have to be ending someone elses life.
Speak for yourself.
There has to be someone defending the child's right to live. I'm honored that I can use my speech to do it. Someone has to communicate the truth and if noone does another child and mother will be traumatized by a group of society that is telling them that it's OK to murder.
Where do you draw the line? Should a murderer be able to choose what happens to him if he's an adult? You'd probably argue that a murder is a crime worthy of limiting the rights of the invidividual who commits the crime. Where do you draw the line on crimes worthy of limiting rights? Would you rather leave the enforcement of the law up to the people? The US is comprised of a majority Christians. You'd leave it up to us to determine law and enforce it?
Especially when it comes to gambling, the purchase of adult beverages, and the premature ending of pregnancy.
"gambling" destroys lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.
"adult beverages" destroy lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.
"premature ending of pregnancy" destroys a premature child's life and causes severe mental trauma on the mother (arguably destroying her life/future)- whenever it happens
What's next? Is suicide going to be defined as "premature torment escape", because "life sucks"?
I've heard politicians recently use the same terms and label the GOP "parents" because they want to provide the American public with what it desires which is protections from dangerous activities. These critical politicians assert that the motivation of the GOP is self-interest. It astonishes me that someone would say that the government is playing parent when the majority of the country would vote for the legislation they are introducing.
What kind of democracy would we have if the majority was influenced by a small minority that is bent on self-sacrifice, because they really "feel" like it's the right thing to do.
It seems to me like there are a whole group of people in this nation who are bent on loosening the moral fiber that has driven the nation to success because they don't want to be held responsble for other people's pain caused by their gambling, adult beverages, and abortion. I guess hurting and killing other people should be legal because a small few "feel" like it's the right thing to do.
Yet they sell a 100 dollar OS upgrade and have software companies refusing to continue development on their platform because they are being beaten out of the market by Apple's version of the same product. I believe Apple wants to be seen as a hardware company still, but are continually moving towards a total solutions provider.
It always confused me when people said Apple was a competitor to M$ when M$ was a software solutions provider and Apple was a hardware solutions provider.
I'm agreeing with you, but it seems their vision is in flux lately and that Apple might be attempting to move toward adding a software sales solution provider as well as hardware.
The problem I see here is that this fellow's "god" is the "god" of money. His tone clearly throughout his letter is one of "if it don't make dollars, it don't make sense".
As a software developer I donate a lot of my time and software development knowledge to benefit other people. Not only can the open-source community provide software solutions to low income people, but also they can improve their skill on the software that they write.
So let me respond.
Dear Clemens,
I take pride in my abilities as a software developer and look for every opportunity to benefit someone else. I gain a greater understanding of software development processes and how to develop software by engaging in these open-source projects. I benefit in the areas of character development, soft-skills development, and general software development experience. The benefit is not only mine as it would be if I were to only create a self-interested and proprietary solution; rather, the benefit now falls to someone less fortunate than myself be it a college student that can't afford the latest offerings from the software giants or government institutions that are trying to carve away at their computer budget in order to focus on their bottom line. I develop free open-source software to benefit other people. I hope to have given you some insight into the reasoning I have used to work on an open-source team in my spare time. Sincerely, follower_of_christ
I used to think I needed God to crack open the sky and smack me upside the head for me to believe. Then he graced me with his presence. So much so that if I were to doubt again it would really stem from me running away from the responsibility of living as a respectable human being and attaching myself to the short term benefits of sin. I've been unhappy at times, but have experienced more joy than I could have ever imagined.
I applaud the rest of the world for becoming competitors in the space rafe and giving the US a new determination.