Is there a way to disable the "feature" that forces me to load the CD every time I want to play the game? And will doing so get me banned? Why can't steam disable this annoying problem after we activate our game and prove to them that we bought it? At least there is a hack for Doom 3 and other newer games that disable the CD check without getting you banned from the network.
127.0.0.1 is NOT the right address to use. Some scripts will delay loading or displaying a page until certian data has been downloaded. If your computer is waiting for itself to respond to itself, some pages will never be displayed... even after the browser times out. You should use 0.0.0.0 instead.
McCain could have run again. There have been many times in history where a party did not choose a sitting President to run again. The "Dean Scream" was largly fabricated by the media. Post production editing removed much of the crowd noise so instead of looking like he was yelling in excitement over a roaring crowed, most people saw him as a raving lunatic screaming many, many times loder than a crowd of thousands was.
The media, and by extension the people, tend to focus on the candidates who win the early primaries. That's why Iowa changed its date to precede New Hampshire, which itself changed its date years ago to put itself before 6 or so states scheduled February 3rd. Being earlier on the list gives those states more authority over the process because the candidates are unoffically chosen before the entire process is even half way finished. Nobody ever hears of the New Jersy priamries, but for weeks all we hear about is the Iowa and New Hampshire events because they have an enormous ammount of power due to their earlier timing.
Yes, the offical announcemnts come after the very end, but that is simply a fomality; by design that is they way it's done. It's too bad that it doesn't function, in practice, the way it's designed in spirit; but then again, when's the last time that government functioned according to the spirit of the law instead of the wording of it? It's unrealisitc to expect the population at large to be motivated enough to take part in primaries in the manner it does with the actual elections. It just shows how overly complicated our very old, and unmodified electoral system is.
Is there a reason that direct elections are not an option worth considering? Why can't all the democrats and republicans that want to run, with one of each holding an offical party endorsement and the others standing on unique platforms? Would this confuse a population that has over 200 years of 2 choices only built into its ideals? Instead, they are forced to run as independents. Every aspect of our society and government has undergone radical changes since 1776. They one system that hasn't changed at all is the electoral system. It was designed for an era where only white males could vote. Few of them were had much formal education, and fewer were literate. The electorates were intended to prevent deceptive candidates from fooling a poorly educated population because they were supposed to be educated enough to see through the propaganda. If the people voted for a fraud, the electorate was free to vote another way because that person was a hack. Hell, that's happened on more than one occasion within our lifetime. Unfortunately nobody advocating electoral reform will ever get elected because the powers that be will label him a lunatic and his ideas as crackpot theories.
It was called DoubleSpace in 5.0 (i believe) through 6.21. Then they mailed out 6.22 (the last true version of DOS) to people who registered thier DoubleSpace bundled versions. The new utility was called DriveSpace and was also included in Windows 95 and 98. They said their reason was due to many complaints of data loss and other errors and DriveSpace corrected them.
I'd tell you all how it can be done, but dinner will be ready within the centiday and I need to pick up another can of pin stripe jacket since it's getting cold outside.
The 2.x version was it's glory. Extremely small, very fast, and could run like a pro on a 386. The downside was that it had no library management system, just the ability to make and save playlists. Then 3.x came along and added missing features... so many that you neded at least 256MB of memory and a 1GHz machine at minimum to get anything decent out of it. 5.x was pure AOL, and pure crap. Not to mention about a year after AOL bought them, installing winamp also installed several (and I mean several) links to "Try AOL for free" all over your machine. I'd still be using 2.x right now if it had support for OGG media, but since it was built into 3.x nobody took the time to make a plugin.
I fail to see what values have to do with voting for a man that has so much contempt for the middle class American. I mean, as long as you don't work for a government contractor, own stock, or belong to the religious majority, there is little most people have in common with him. Then again, it's not like many people have much in common with Kerry either.
Can anyone really say, with a straight face, that they were satisfied with the two choices the system provided us with? Was there a good reason that the race was Bush v. Kerry instead of McCain V. Dean other than the bullshit notion of primaries? It disgusts me to no end that petty political difference can so blind the public that they forget that hedonistic political parties exist to serve themselves above all else.
Well, to start you can look at all the red states occupying the middle of America where religion and vales matter more than facts. It still amazes me that people are willing to cast a vote based on religious reasons. I mean, it's not like a Christian ever did anything immoral, illegal, or just plain mean; it's statistically impossible. A mans religious beliefs are a good indicator of his ability to rule justly.... Right.
It's all a democratic ploy to discredit or dethrone our duly elected Pope. The first rule of the Democratic process is: Do not talk about the Democratic process. The second rule of the Democratic process is: Do not question the Democratic process...
People who get jobs making polution controls are being diverted from the ultimate goal of all employment, making consumer goods.
Because consumerism leads to happly people. That's why you will never see a rich person on anti-depresants. Material objects that we own define us as people. My car is what makes me... me, and god bless Detroit for making it because otherwise my life would be incomplete. Anyone who says money can't buy happiness isn't getting the bulk of Bush's tax cuts and is just plain shopping in the wrong place.
The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you. -Gordon Gekko
Ummm... He let AIDS explode by not talking to the public about it and not even acknowledging it until many cases were reported in most major cities. Does anyone remember the phrase "Gay Cancer"? That is exactly why people refused to move. It wasn't until several high profile heterosexual people contracted it through blood transfusions, health care services, andother non gay/drug related causes that he actually took a stance.Yes he eventually spent money and made a public address, but the damage had been done.
Please check your facts before you elevate a human to the level of a god.
After almost six years of silence on the epidemic,'' said Rep. Henry Waxman D.-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, ''the president has finally said that he will fight the disease.Source
A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men."Source
When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987.Source
Just as a person can lie by omission, someone can be guilty by inaction. Six years is a long time to remain silent about a disease that can infect anyone and kill slowly and painfully, especially when that person is the most powerful one in the world.
Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last
I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash. Who writes these damn definitions? Besides, any good liberal should stick around to give GW a deadlocked congress. That means no more former oil and logging executives in charge of environmental protection, no more reducing pollution regulations and calling it a reduction in pollution, and generally all the other ass backwards slides America has taken. Vote for congress, povided y'all live that long.
You assume that the government is either democratic or republican. You fail to see how both of them will contribute to the downfall of American society. You speak of "Bush haters" as if he as given no reason to discourage such a large percentage of the population. Believe me, it is almost impossible to piss off such a vast ammount of people for petty actions. Americans are fickle, but not to that degree. Let me assure you they Kerry supporters are not like Bush supporters. This election has come down to the Bush vs. ANYONE but Bush camps. Attila the Hun could be running against Bush and poll at the smae numbers as Kerry.
What people are afraid of is that the war on terror will be a clone of the war on drugs. That it will be ever lasting because nobody will know when to delcare victory. Or they are afraid that civil liberties and judicial oversight will be eroded in the name of protecting the status quo. Say what you want about Iraq, but Saddam was no threat to us, and speculation that he mayone day be is speculation at best. He was the problem of the Iraqis; they let him rise to power, and it was their responsibility to remove him. It wouldn't have been the first bloody uprising in the region. Instead Iraqis are now considered patriots for resisting and killing American roops when it should have been Saddams troops.
Oh, and uh... Bush suporters shouldn't be tempted to point out Kerry's bullshit lest they forget that the current Bush empire is built on it.
He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.
She's lucky that she wasn't declared a terrorist and her all human rights voided on sight.
"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.
God forbid some terrorists fly some Boeing knock-offs into buildings instead of legitimate ones.
"Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.
You speak of religion bashing as if religious people were the minority; as if your way of life was being threatened. You are still free to move to a dry county where dancing is illegal, to raise your children to with your beliefs, and to allow them to pray in school as long as you don't force everyone to look at the Ten Commandments. What bothers me is how people wear their religion as a badge of honor reminiscent of a baby boomer jetting around town in a red convertible. Prayer must be done in public as to flaunt personal beliefs. It was my understanding that spiritual beliefs are a deeply personal subject, and shouldn't be used to draw attention of a crowd. I thought Jesus never once prayed in public.
But I digress, America is a land founded by people so prudish that the British wanted them gone. Those roots still exist in society today. We can see all the deprived acts of violence we want in our TV, movies, and news; yet the high moral community was all in uproar over Janet Jackson despite the fact the news afterwards had no trouble airing violence and death from elsewhere in the world.
Religious motives create moral ambiguity as interpretations of religious texts change over time. A perfect example is how all major religions have been used to justify immoral actions from slavery to war within a religous context. It limits personal actions by individuals that can affect only the them yet does little to address the mob mentality that lies beneath the surface. It is still very common to walk into a Sunday service and hear the pastor or preacher railing about how a good woman must be subservient to her man; that their husband is their master. These are to be the same people who influence marriages, children, and the community at large.
The peace of mind it offers to those who can't live with unanswerable philosophical questions is paid in the high toll of death, bloodshed, and the suffering of those forced to live under its rule. We've witnessed our society impose a wave of new policy over the last four year, based on interpretation of ambiguous religious text under the assumption that the bible holds and answer to everyone's question. Even more frightening is that it is impossible for a political representative to win the support of the masses without first whoring his spiritual beliefs to the community. There are even citizens that base their votes strictly on the perceived faith of a candidate; despite the fact that the historical records show that religious beliefs have little reflection of the moral actions and sound decision making of a leader.
The fact is that untold scores of people benefit from the release of tension. Using the law and social or economic coercion to limit the behavior of individuals in their own privacy is not doing them any favors. This tension will just lie in wait for a long time before it snaps in public. You argue that lust corrupts minds. Lust is human nature. It existed before porn, and will continue on long after. One thing religion has never been able to do is cure the human condition. Keep your religion out of my government, and I will my government out of your religion.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of democracy. Democratic states can still practice socialist ideas like government sponsered healthcare, welfare, and a multitude of other public services. Medicare, welfare, social security, unemployment benifits, and even public schooling are simply the most common ones most Americans have to deal with. It's all about how a society values certian topics as part of the common good. The most common form of modern socialism has abanoned the more communist aspects while still focusing social and civil services. Some countries consider helping the unemployed with money and job training/placement as something that benifits everyone, so taxes are collected on everyone (theoretically) because society, in general, gains.
The princial behind modern socalism is that society acts like a framework for the people. Anyone, given oportunity and motive, can climb their way towards the top. The higher you climb, the more you are expected to contribute, so that the people just starting can be provided the same opportunity. Socialism isn't about taxing the rich back into the middle class or even the redistribution of wealth, it's about giving back to the society that allowed for the possibility of such success.
I find the site offensive as an objectification of women, and think it is socially detrimental as it fosters a focus on prurient interests.
Just because you don't like bondage and S&M doesn't mean that your opinion should be forced on others. Your protest should begin and end with you refusing to view said site and making no payments. Otherwise... well... opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.
I'm sure there are those who will argue about freedoms and consenting adults and such, but I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things.
You think there should be a "line" for what consenting adults do in their own privacy? Are we a fan of small government... so small it fits into the bedroom?
Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.
People are sheep, they will protest whatever a stronger, more influental person tells them too. Hence religion.
So call me a prude and mod me as flamebait, but I vainly hope that Slashdot will show a little bit of social responsibility.
So is that subversive for religous responsibility? Morality is a highly subjective topic. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of exposed skin a threat to society. I'm also sure there are people out there that find all clothing a threat to society. How about we let/. post whatever the hell the editors want, and as mature, responsible adults we decide for ourselves what to look at instead of relying on a higher censoring authority to make that decision for us. The internet is not a babysitter.
I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.
there's also the fact that the only way to get some long-term stability in the region is to institute some regime change, and Saddam Hussein's was one regime we could legally and easily change.
Our other attempts to install American agreeable governments usually don't turn out so well. Let's not forget that the US backs the Saudis who are one of the most oppresive families to ever rule in the middle east. Basically, if it weren't for oil, the middle east would get the same attention from us that Africa gets. But instead of spending the war chest on developing and deploying non-oil energy sources, we'd rather bomb the shit out of some poor people so we can keep using oil until it runs out. Besides, we can let our children worry about that when the time comes. I just think it's absoutely hysterical that we buy oil from the same people who Bush considers terrorists or funders of. If we quit giving them money, how would they attack us? We bank roll the people in order for them to kill us. Why does nobody understand this? Instead we'd rather try again and again to install a government that likes us, ignoring the historical record of what the outcome will be. Basically, fuck the Iraqis Saddam was their problem. They let him rise to power, and they should have been the ones to take up arms against him. Yes, many would have died, but they would be patriots for freeing themselves, not for killing Americans. Even if there wasn't a people more deserving, there sould be more pressing social concerns within our borders.
So you would rather live under an electoral system desigend in an age where only white males could vote, few were formally educated, and fewer were literate? Do you see any differences between the American society in the days of the founding, and today?
We elect our ELECTORS and if you get enough states to pledge their electors for you (270) you win even if you lost the popular vote.
Because direct elections are for chumps, right?
It's part of our checks and balances.
Bzzzt. Wrong. The 3 branches of the federal government are part of the system of checks and balances. C&B is for government, not for the peoples voice in choosing their leaders.
Would you complain about that if Gore had won the electors, but lost the popular vote?
In fact... I would. Small minded people are the ones who allow Americas political system to continue eating itself. Why should the pinncale of Democracy allow people to gain entry to an office that the majority (>50.00%) voted against?
Last I checked, we were a republic and not a democracy.
Wrong again. We live in a representitive republic which is the modern incarnation of a true democracy (which doesn't scale very well). It just happens to be one that is getting worse and worse at the representitive part. Wanna know who else uses the word republic in their names? How about the Centeral African Republic, People Republic of China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, The Islamic Republic of Iran, People Democratic Republic of Lao, and Syrian Arab Republic among others. The lesson: Words are as useless as toliet paper in the governmental realm. The (in)actions of governments sould speak more than their label.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a way to disable the "feature" that forces me to load the CD every time I want to play the game? And will doing so get me banned? Why can't steam disable this annoying problem after we activate our game and prove to them that we bought it? At least there is a hack for Doom 3 and other newer games that disable the CD check without getting you banned from the network.
127.0.0.1 is NOT the right address to use. Some scripts will delay loading or displaying a page until certian data has been downloaded. If your computer is waiting for itself to respond to itself, some pages will never be displayed... even after the browser times out. You should use 0.0.0.0 instead.
McCain could have run again. There have been many times in history where a party did not choose a sitting President to run again. The "Dean Scream" was largly fabricated by the media. Post production editing removed much of the crowd noise so instead of looking like he was yelling in excitement over a roaring crowed, most people saw him as a raving lunatic screaming many, many times loder than a crowd of thousands was.
The media, and by extension the people, tend to focus on the candidates who win the early primaries. That's why Iowa changed its date to precede New Hampshire, which itself changed its date years ago to put itself before 6 or so states scheduled February 3rd. Being earlier on the list gives those states more authority over the process because the candidates are unoffically chosen before the entire process is even half way finished. Nobody ever hears of the New Jersy priamries, but for weeks all we hear about is the Iowa and New Hampshire events because they have an enormous ammount of power due to their earlier timing.
Yes, the offical announcemnts come after the very end, but that is simply a fomality; by design that is they way it's done. It's too bad that it doesn't function, in practice, the way it's designed in spirit; but then again, when's the last time that government functioned according to the spirit of the law instead of the wording of it? It's unrealisitc to expect the population at large to be motivated enough to take part in primaries in the manner it does with the actual elections. It just shows how overly complicated our very old, and unmodified electoral system is.
Is there a reason that direct elections are not an option worth considering? Why can't all the democrats and republicans that want to run, with one of each holding an offical party endorsement and the others standing on unique platforms? Would this confuse a population that has over 200 years of 2 choices only built into its ideals? Instead, they are forced to run as independents. Every aspect of our society and government has undergone radical changes since 1776. They one system that hasn't changed at all is the electoral system. It was designed for an era where only white males could vote. Few of them were had much formal education, and fewer were literate. The electorates were intended to prevent deceptive candidates from fooling a poorly educated population because they were supposed to be educated enough to see through the propaganda. If the people voted for a fraud, the electorate was free to vote another way because that person was a hack. Hell, that's happened on more than one occasion within our lifetime. Unfortunately nobody advocating electoral reform will ever get elected because the powers that be will label him a lunatic and his ideas as crackpot theories.
It was called DoubleSpace in 5.0 (i believe) through 6.21. Then they mailed out 6.22 (the last true version of DOS) to people who registered thier DoubleSpace bundled versions. The new utility was called DriveSpace and was also included in Windows 95 and 98. They said their reason was due to many complaints of data loss and other errors and DriveSpace corrected them.
I'd tell you all how it can be done, but dinner will be ready within the centiday and I need to pick up another can of pin stripe jacket since it's getting cold outside.
Who would want to live next to a gasoline station when this happens all too often? Hydrogen is much less volatile than one would think.
The 2.x version was it's glory. Extremely small, very fast, and could run like a pro on a 386. The downside was that it had no library management system, just the ability to make and save playlists. Then 3.x came along and added missing features... so many that you neded at least 256MB of memory and a 1GHz machine at minimum to get anything decent out of it. 5.x was pure AOL, and pure crap. Not to mention about a year after AOL bought them, installing winamp also installed several (and I mean several) links to "Try AOL for free" all over your machine. I'd still be using 2.x right now if it had support for OGG media, but since it was built into 3.x nobody took the time to make a plugin.
I fail to see what values have to do with voting for a man that has so much contempt for the middle class American. I mean, as long as you don't work for a government contractor, own stock, or belong to the religious majority, there is little most people have in common with him. Then again, it's not like many people have much in common with Kerry either.
Can anyone really say, with a straight face, that they were satisfied with the two choices the system provided us with? Was there a good reason that the race was Bush v. Kerry instead of McCain V. Dean other than the bullshit notion of primaries? It disgusts me to no end that petty political difference can so blind the public that they forget that hedonistic political parties exist to serve themselves above all else.
Well, to start you can look at all the red states occupying the middle of America where religion and vales matter more than facts. It still amazes me that people are willing to cast a vote based on religious reasons. I mean, it's not like a Christian ever did anything immoral, illegal, or just plain mean; it's statistically impossible. A mans religious beliefs are a good indicator of his ability to rule justly.... Right.
It's all a democratic ploy to discredit or dethrone our duly elected Pope. The first rule of the Democratic process is: Do not talk about the Democratic process. The second rule of the Democratic process is: Do not question the Democratic process...
The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you. -Gordon Gekko
Breathe polluted air, drink contaminated water, eat tainted food, vote Republican. What good is a poisoned worker?
Ummm... He let AIDS explode by not talking to the public about it and not even acknowledging it until many cases were reported in most major cities. Does anyone remember the phrase "Gay Cancer"? That is exactly why people refused to move. It wasn't until several high profile heterosexual people contracted it through blood transfusions, health care services, andother non gay/drug related causes that he actually took a stance.Yes he eventually spent money and made a public address, but the damage had been done.
Please check your facts before you elevate a human to the level of a god.
After almost six years of silence on the epidemic,'' said Rep. Henry Waxman D.-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, ''the president has finally said that he will fight the disease. Source
A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." Source
When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987. Source
Just as a person can lie by omission, someone can be guilty by inaction. Six years is a long time to remain silent about a disease that can infect anyone and kill slowly and painfully, especially when that person is the most powerful one in the world.
If google now relies on self censorship to promote their company image, then they can kiss their #1 ranked ass goodbye.
GO Democracy!!! The only place where the lesser of two evils wins out over the best man for the job. woot woot
Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last
I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash. Who writes these damn definitions? Besides, any good liberal should stick around to give GW a deadlocked congress. That means no more former oil and logging executives in charge of environmental protection, no more reducing pollution regulations and calling it a reduction in pollution, and generally all the other ass backwards slides America has taken. Vote for congress, povided y'all live that long.
So who won? Was it the giant douche or the terd sandwich?
You assume that the government is either democratic or republican. You fail to see how both of them will contribute to the downfall of American society. You speak of "Bush haters" as if he as given no reason to discourage such a large percentage of the population. Believe me, it is almost impossible to piss off such a vast ammount of people for petty actions. Americans are fickle, but not to that degree. Let me assure you they Kerry supporters are not like Bush supporters. This election has come down to the Bush vs. ANYONE but Bush camps. Attila the Hun could be running against Bush and poll at the smae numbers as Kerry.
What people are afraid of is that the war on terror will be a clone of the war on drugs. That it will be ever lasting because nobody will know when to delcare victory. Or they are afraid that civil liberties and judicial oversight will be eroded in the name of protecting the status quo. Say what you want about Iraq, but Saddam was no threat to us, and speculation that he may one day be is speculation at best. He was the problem of the Iraqis; they let him rise to power, and it was their responsibility to remove him. It wouldn't have been the first bloody uprising in the region. Instead Iraqis are now considered patriots for resisting and killing American roops when it should have been Saddams troops.
Oh, and uh... Bush suporters shouldn't be tempted to point out Kerry's bullshit lest they forget that the current Bush empire is built on it.
You speak of religion bashing as if religious people were the minority; as if your way of life was being threatened. You are still free to move to a dry county where dancing is illegal, to raise your children to with your beliefs, and to allow them to pray in school as long as you don't force everyone to look at the Ten Commandments. What bothers me is how people wear their religion as a badge of honor reminiscent of a baby boomer jetting around town in a red convertible. Prayer must be done in public as to flaunt personal beliefs. It was my understanding that spiritual beliefs are a deeply personal subject, and shouldn't be used to draw attention of a crowd. I thought Jesus never once prayed in public.
But I digress, America is a land founded by people so prudish that the British wanted them gone. Those roots still exist in society today. We can see all the deprived acts of violence we want in our TV, movies, and news; yet the high moral community was all in uproar over Janet Jackson despite the fact the news afterwards had no trouble airing violence and death from elsewhere in the world.
Religious motives create moral ambiguity as interpretations of religious texts change over time. A perfect example is how all major religions have been used to justify immoral actions from slavery to war within a religous context. It limits personal actions by individuals that can affect only the them yet does little to address the mob mentality that lies beneath the surface. It is still very common to walk into a Sunday service and hear the pastor or preacher railing about how a good woman must be subservient to her man; that their husband is their master. These are to be the same people who influence marriages, children, and the community at large.
The peace of mind it offers to those who can't live with unanswerable philosophical questions is paid in the high toll of death, bloodshed, and the suffering of those forced to live under its rule. We've witnessed our society impose a wave of new policy over the last four year, based on interpretation of ambiguous religious text under the assumption that the bible holds and answer to everyone's question. Even more frightening is that it is impossible for a political representative to win the support of the masses without first whoring his spiritual beliefs to the community. There are even citizens that base their votes strictly on the perceived faith of a candidate; despite the fact that the historical records show that religious beliefs have little reflection of the moral actions and sound decision making of a leader.
The fact is that untold scores of people benefit from the release of tension. Using the law and social or economic coercion to limit the behavior of individuals in their own privacy is not doing them any favors. This tension will just lie in wait for a long time before it snaps in public. You argue that lust corrupts minds. Lust is human nature. It existed before porn, and will continue on long after. One thing religion has never been able to do is cure the human condition. Keep your religion out of my government, and I will my government out of your religion.
There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of democracy. Democratic states can still practice socialist ideas like government sponsered healthcare, welfare, and a multitude of other public services. Medicare, welfare, social security, unemployment benifits, and even public schooling are simply the most common ones most Americans have to deal with. It's all about how a society values certian topics as part of the common good. The most common form of modern socialism has abanoned the more communist aspects while still focusing social and civil services. Some countries consider helping the unemployed with money and job training/placement as something that benifits everyone, so taxes are collected on everyone (theoretically) because society, in general, gains.
The princial behind modern socalism is that society acts like a framework for the people. Anyone, given oportunity and motive, can climb their way towards the top. The higher you climb, the more you are expected to contribute, so that the people just starting can be provided the same opportunity. Socialism isn't about taxing the rich back into the middle class or even the redistribution of wealth, it's about giving back to the society that allowed for the possibility of such success.
You think there should be a "line" for what consenting adults do in their own privacy? Are we a fan of small government... so small it fits into the bedroom?
People are sheep, they will protest whatever a stronger, more influental person tells them too. Hence religion.
So is that subversive for religous responsibility? Morality is a highly subjective topic. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of exposed skin a threat to society. I'm also sure there are people out there that find all clothing a threat to society. How about we let
I submit you are smoking crack.
Because direct elections are for chumps, right?
Bzzzt. Wrong. The 3 branches of the federal government are part of the system of checks and balances. C&B is for government, not for the peoples voice in choosing their leaders.
In fact... I would. Small minded people are the ones who allow Americas political system to continue eating itself. Why should the pinncale of Democracy allow people to gain entry to an office that the majority (>50.00%) voted against?
Wrong again. We live in a representitive republic which is the modern incarnation of a true democracy (which doesn't scale very well). It just happens to be one that is getting worse and worse at the representitive part. Wanna know who else uses the word republic in their names? How about the Centeral African Republic, People Republic of China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, The Islamic Republic of Iran, People Democratic Republic of Lao, and Syrian Arab Republic among others. The lesson: Words are as useless as toliet paper in the governmental realm. The (in)actions of governments sould speak more than their label.