You dare to mention Orwell and make accusations of doublethink and then deny freedom of conscience?
Do not perhaps your beliefs affect other people?
And who are you to decide that condoning certain beliefs is "harmful to society at large" and that condoning yours isn't? Who, also, are you to hold yourself up as the arbiter of thought? Suppose "society" doesn't want your protection?
And how would you go about compelling people to believe the "right" things anyway?
And lest you wonder, no, I am not a Biblical literalist: I do not believe in the fundamental inerrancy of the Bible or that it must be taken absolutely literally. So you needn't go there.
Correct. The Internet is, fundamentally, an invention of the United States. Now, that doesn't mean that we should be arrogant about it, but what have, say, Cuba or Iran done to create or maintain it? Then why should they have any part in its control? Never mind the fact that they're repressive, closed, anti-deomcratic states....
"Hey! How about we let real fiction writers take a stab at writing some episodes? Maybe Stephen King, the Law & Order writers and Johanna Lindsey would'nt mind taking a stab at an episode each! Can't be any worse than what Rick & company has produced!"
I think that's an excellent idea. Some of TOS' best episodes were written by real sf writers, like Richard Matheson, Theodore Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, Jerry Sohl.... I would welcome something like that today.
In order to lie, someone must know that what they are saying isn't true.
Are you saying, then, that President Bush somehow knew that there were no weapons in Iraq, despite the huge amount of intelligence, from domestic and foreign sources, believed by people from both parties and in many nations, to the contrary?
Granted, it has turned out that that intelligence was faulty, and that's a serious problem that we have to correct, certainly. It may even go to the culture of expectations in the executive branch, and that will have to be examined and corrected if necessary---perhaps electorally. But did the President say something he knew was untrue? In other words, did he lie? No.
Absolutely. Most of Europe, especially the West, is decidedly anti-Iraq-war and anti-Bush. Can we really expect them to be reliable monitors of this election?
However, if it's stability you want, there's nothing more stable than a dictatorship.
No, I don't think so. Most dictatorships in the world have been very short-lived: Robespierre's France (~1 y), Napoleonic France (~15 y), Nazi Germany (~15 y), Fascist Italy (~15 y), Imperial Japan (~25 y), the USSR (~75 y), etc. True, Cuba (~50 y), North Korea (~50 y) and China (~55 y) are still around, but I don't think they will be for much longer (especially the former two). By contrast, the United States and its presidential system (albeit with some modifications over the course of time) has continued through over 200 years of history, including a land invasion and destruction of the capital by the British in the War of 1812, the nullification crisis, the slave question and the civil war, the Great Depression, two world wars, civil unrest during the Vietnam War, the Watergate crisis, an energy crisis, and September 11. Add to that a number of assassinations along the way (Lincoln, by a Confederate sympathizer; McKinley, by an anarchist; Kennedy, by...somebody) and this makes for a pretty good track record of stability.
The doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances, combined with federalism, both make for this remarkable stability, without the need for the "collapse of the government" and the need for the executive to call for new elections.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Linux. Especially Ubuntu.
Nitpick alert: it was "I, Mudd," not "Mudd's Women."
Touché....
You dare to mention Orwell and make accusations of doublethink and then deny freedom of conscience?
Do not perhaps your beliefs affect other people?
And who are you to decide that condoning certain beliefs is "harmful to society at large" and that condoning yours isn't? Who, also, are you to hold yourself up as the arbiter of thought? Suppose "society" doesn't want your protection?
And how would you go about compelling people to believe the "right" things anyway?
And lest you wonder, no, I am not a Biblical literalist: I do not believe in the fundamental inerrancy of the Bible or that it must be taken absolutely literally. So you needn't go there.
Funny how you conveniently forget that we're talking about the Internet, not the Web.
Correct. The Internet is, fundamentally, an invention of the United States. Now, that doesn't mean that we should be arrogant about it, but what have, say, Cuba or Iran done to create or maintain it? Then why should they have any part in its control? Never mind the fact that they're repressive, closed, anti-deomcratic states....
First!
Um, offtopic, I know, but I couldn't resist: your sig was written by Immanuel Kant, not Albert Einstein.
Or, perhaps a scientist engaging in experimentation. Or, someone who knows exactly what he's doing introducing a change in his creatures.
"Hey! How about we let real fiction writers take a stab at writing some episodes? Maybe Stephen King, the Law & Order writers and Johanna Lindsey would'nt mind taking a stab at an episode each! Can't be any worse than what Rick & company has produced!"
I think that's an excellent idea. Some of TOS' best episodes were written by real sf writers, like Richard Matheson, Theodore Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison, Jerry Sohl.... I would welcome something like that today.
In order to lie, someone must know that what they are saying isn't true.
Are you saying, then, that President Bush somehow knew that there were no weapons in Iraq, despite the huge amount of intelligence, from domestic and foreign sources, believed by people from both parties and in many nations, to the contrary?
Granted, it has turned out that that intelligence was faulty, and that's a serious problem that we have to correct, certainly. It may even go to the culture of expectations in the executive branch, and that will have to be examined and corrected if necessary---perhaps electorally. But did the President say something he knew was untrue? In other words, did he lie? No.
What, then, gives precedent for monitors today, AC?
Someone ought to tell the Australian republicans, then.
And neither is there any reason to believe it's any other nation.
An the UK isn't really a republic; it hasn't been since the brief Cromwell years.
Only if they were alive both in 1776 and 2004.
How enlightened! How tolerant! Please, please, enlightened ones, show us the way!
At last, a rational statement. Amen.
It's true, nontheless. The Election of 1876 was contested and no one came to monitor the Election of 1880. End of story.
Wow, what peaceful, inclusive language!
Absolutely. Most of Europe, especially the West, is decidedly anti-Iraq-war and anti-Bush. Can we really expect them to be reliable monitors of this election?
Riiiiiiiiiight.
Wiggidy-whack?
However, if it's stability you want, there's nothing more stable than a dictatorship. No, I don't think so. Most dictatorships in the world have been very short-lived: Robespierre's France (~1 y), Napoleonic France (~15 y), Nazi Germany (~15 y), Fascist Italy (~15 y), Imperial Japan (~25 y), the USSR (~75 y), etc. True, Cuba (~50 y), North Korea (~50 y) and China (~55 y) are still around, but I don't think they will be for much longer (especially the former two). By contrast, the United States and its presidential system (albeit with some modifications over the course of time) has continued through over 200 years of history, including a land invasion and destruction of the capital by the British in the War of 1812, the nullification crisis, the slave question and the civil war, the Great Depression, two world wars, civil unrest during the Vietnam War, the Watergate crisis, an energy crisis, and September 11. Add to that a number of assassinations along the way (Lincoln, by a Confederate sympathizer; McKinley, by an anarchist; Kennedy, by...somebody) and this makes for a pretty good track record of stability. The doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances, combined with federalism, both make for this remarkable stability, without the need for the "collapse of the government" and the need for the executive to call for new elections.