And, in a similar vein, let's face it, protecting childern from porn is no different from protecting them from forms of violence. And what is more natural?
Uh, neither? Alright, well, if we're talking about children, then violence is obviously more natural, particularly for boys. Before their teen years, children are biologically wired to view the opposite sex as something to be avoided. This is a natural safegaurd against inbreeding. However, violence is something that nature finds necessary in just about any species, and the sooner an animal learns it (and we humans are animals), the better they will generally be in everything from obtaining food to not becoming food to finding a mate.
So, in summary, sex is not in the nature of the young, but violence is, therefore we don't need to expose children to sex, something they won't comprehend, but they must learn to cope with violent behavior quickly in order to be socially well adjusted. Does this answer your questions?
Have you ever heard of a Dixicrat before? These are people who have been registered Democrats all their lives who have been consistantly voting Republican for the past few decades. They probably don't even realize that they're still registered as Democrats. Guess what? There's a hell of a lot of them in those Florida counties.
Also, it should be noted that in the Miami area, which is where Berkley is wasting (hopefully non-taxpayer) money "looking into" the votes, is one of the few places in the country where the results actually matched the exit poll data (which, nationally, favored Kerry).
Actually you forgot that first they will warn the offending country about the UN's desire to look into the possibility of writing a letter. Next, they will send a notice of intent to send a letter. Finally, if, and only if, diplomacy completely and catestrophically breaks down, will the letter be sent. In extreme cases it will be followed up by a "Hrumpf" from Kofi Anan.
At the end of the day French politicians and UN beuraucrats will get some sweet sweet graft out of the deal, and really, isn't that what diplomacy is all about?
These people were invited on behalf of Dems. But, don't think this is a move designed to facilitate fair elections. Here's Yahoo's report a while back, which gives a few more details such as what states will be observed; Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia. Interesting how these five states all went republican last election, no? And if they want to observe corruption, why not go to the most corrupt county in the US; Cook County IL? Or, running close behind; Hudson County, NJ? Maybe because these go consistantly Democrat? Why not examine the widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin, where Democratic operatives were out on the street passing out cigarettes to the homeless to get them to vote specifically for Gore and where there are already signs of attempted voter fraud in 2004? (BTW; Wisconsin went Gore, but just barely) Seeing a pattern yet? This is a purely partisan action. All that this says is the aftermath of the 2004 elections is going to be nastier than 2000.
Lots of things can cause mushroom clouds. It may even be the case that NK is blowing up something (lots of TNT) to impress their own people and keep morale up while scaring everyone else. It may also be the case that they just detonated a nuke.
Even better is the fact that they don't point to different bright spots. It's just the before and after picture is a cropped version of the main and annotated images.
True, the 14th Amendment does extend that ban, but only in the sense that a local government cannot pass a law that allows Congress to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The problem you run into with the current, very loose, legal interpritation is that you need to start poking holes in the Constitution to allow such things as death threats and incitements to violence and espionage (keep in mind those same court ruling seek to apply the First Amendment to the Executive and Judicial branches) to be prosecuted. Since we started down the road of "Congress shall make no law... abriding the freedom of speech... but" we now have these magical regulations for 'commercial' speech, and it's illegal now for you to scrounge up some money and buy a TV ad urging people to vote for a particular candidate close to an election. Those same fast and loose methods that people have used to broaden the scope of our Constitutional rights have, once deemed legitimate, been turned back on us to narrow those same rights. The result: no more Constitutional guarantees. Your rights are only as good as your bank account.
See, the notion that religion has no place in school goes against the notion that you should be free to practice it. Religion is an integral part of who you are, it's not something you check at the door. Seems you're confusing "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion."
What are you doing complaining about how off topic this is? You specifically brought these charges up. Don't expect to post something and not be challenged.
Whilst the Germans possibly formulated their bioethics arguments properly, the US ban on stem cell research...
FOUL ON THE PLAY! There is no ban on stem cell research in the US. Since Bush has taken office there has only been "steps forward" for the scientific community on this issue, none backwards.
While the main reason was most likely oil...
Someone really has to explain this to me. We've had ample opportunity to get loads and loads of cheap Iraqi oil for twelve years. We could have let Saddam take over Kuwait and taken him up on his offer to be America's gas station, or we could have gone the French and Russian route and made under the table deals with Saddam, or we could have moved to lessen the sanctions or at least not oppose attempts to do so. It would have been a lot better than the current situation of having our troops guard thousands of miles of oil infrastructure from terrorist attacks to just get the Iraqi economy going in order to get some oil which OPEC could counter by taking the same ammount off the market without breaking a sweat. No, it seems at every turn the US chose the path of most resistance to get Iraqi oil, if that was the goal.
a significant and unstated part of the Bush administration's reasoning was to shift the power balance in the Middle East, and that is something the Church has been wanting to do for quite a while.
Coincidentally, a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East is also something that people who really are interested in exterminating terrorism have been wanting to do as well. They may argue with the method, sure, but I find it hard to believe that the secular portion of American society doesn't want democracy (and thus, a shift in the balance of power) in the Middle East.
That's complete rubbish and incomrehensible to boot. The Church and other religious (and quasi-religious) organisations tend to grow in power over time,
Just like how the Catholic Church went from Holy Roman Empire to only being able to issue statements and hope other governments listen. Nope, doesn't work, sorry.
Public pro-abstinence statements, arguing against contraception.
Now whose spouting complete rubbish? If the George W. Bush making a pro-abstinence statement is government-sanctioned religious propaganda, so is it government-sanctioned religious propaganda when I say "Jesus Saves." The First Amendment protects everyone equally. You don't just give up all your freedoms when you're elected to office. These aren't laws, there is no legal requirement for you to abide by them, nor is there a federal mandate to "spread the word".
Support, funding and promotion of "faith-based initiatives"
Again, denial of funds to charitable organizations due to their religious affiliation is a law RESPECTING the establishment of religion. Granted, so are tax exemptions to churches based upon the sole fact that they are government recognized churches. If an individual or an organization can justify itself participating in a government program or being exempted from government responsibilities without referencing religion, then under the First Amendment the federal government should not be able to deny it. If it must reference religion, then the federal government should deny it.
Freeze legitimate scientific research because of fuzzy religious bullshit?
Negative. You can research all you want and create as many new stem cell lines as you want. You just don't get government funding for it. Government funding is granted for the handful of stem cell lines, which is actually an improvement over what it was if you have no qualms with arbitrary definitions of human life. Why does Germany have a similar law? Because it is run by a bunch of radical Chrisitans, or because it has to deal with the specters of the likes of Mengele in its past?
Invade another country on bogus grounds masking the real quasi-religious intent?
Which is why we're remaking both Afgahnistan and Iraq into Chrisitian nations by having them declare Islam the official religion... right...
Spend taxpayer money on blurring the line between church and state?
Any attempt by government to enforce a seperation of church and state is itself a violation of the seperation of church and state. Removing legislation that does discriminates based on religion actually means FEWER laws that respect the establishment of religion.
Issue government-sanctioned religious propaganda?
When? Example?
Erode traditional liberties through vaguely-worded and extremely broad legislation rushed through Congress on the back of the terrorist hysteria?
OK, what the HELL does this have to do with Christianity?
I'd like to see how, considering Trey Parker has said Bush isn't in the film. Normally when they make fun of someone, they characature them. If Bush isn't going to be shown, he's unlikely to be made fun of, at least all that much. But hey, it's nice to see the story submitter jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by the facts.
Why arbitrary? Take a proposed, non-arbitrary, definition of a planet and apply it to moons:
Orbits a planet
Is rounded by its own gravity
Add a condition of it having to be more massive than the rest of the mass in a similar orbit if you so desire. Anything else is simply a "natural satellite." Of course, now Mars won't have any moons and the original Doom story line would have to be modified to fit the correct terminology. Ah hell, geeks would never go for that!
Slight problem with your definition: Sedna is not a planet. A small planet is just that; a planet. A planetoid would be an object that wasn't good enough to be called a planet, but came close, such as Ceres. Sure, it's round, but it doesn't possess the majority of the mass in a similar orbit, so not a planet.
Except I'm not asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just a single instance where you can say an interview was probably denyed because of who footage was given to. As you can't even meet this increadibly low threshold, I'll put the theory in the same category as the fake Moon landing and the communist plot to flourinate our water supply. Nah, make that lower; those conspiracy theorist actually try to back up their accusations.
If it can't be proven then the position is simply a matter of faith and has no real place in rational discussion (and certainly no place as an article on a news site), don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure seems to imply that if they can't comprehend it, they avoid it, and it isn't in their nature then they aren't affected by it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you a shining example of the non sequitur.Where did I say "porno just bounces off children?"
And, in a similar vein, let's face it, protecting childern from porn is no different from protecting them from forms of violence. And what is more natural?
Uh, neither? Alright, well, if we're talking about children, then violence is obviously more natural, particularly for boys. Before their teen years, children are biologically wired to view the opposite sex as something to be avoided. This is a natural safegaurd against inbreeding. However, violence is something that nature finds necessary in just about any species, and the sooner an animal learns it (and we humans are animals), the better they will generally be in everything from obtaining food to not becoming food to finding a mate.
So, in summary, sex is not in the nature of the young, but violence is, therefore we don't need to expose children to sex, something they won't comprehend, but they must learn to cope with violent behavior quickly in order to be socially well adjusted. Does this answer your questions?Have you ever heard of a Dixicrat before? These are people who have been registered Democrats all their lives who have been consistantly voting Republican for the past few decades. They probably don't even realize that they're still registered as Democrats. Guess what? There's a hell of a lot of them in those Florida counties.
Also, it should be noted that in the Miami area, which is where Berkley is wasting (hopefully non-taxpayer) money "looking into" the votes, is one of the few places in the country where the results actually matched the exit poll data (which, nationally, favored Kerry).
Sorry folks. Nothing to see here.
Actually you forgot that first they will warn the offending country about the UN's desire to look into the possibility of writing a letter. Next, they will send a notice of intent to send a letter. Finally, if, and only if, diplomacy completely and catestrophically breaks down, will the letter be sent. In extreme cases it will be followed up by a "Hrumpf" from Kofi Anan.
At the end of the day French politicians and UN beuraucrats will get some sweet sweet graft out of the deal, and really, isn't that what diplomacy is all about?
These people were invited on behalf of Dems. But, don't think this is a move designed to facilitate fair elections. Here's Yahoo's report a while back, which gives a few more details such as what states will be observed; Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia. Interesting how these five states all went republican last election, no? And if they want to observe corruption, why not go to the most corrupt county in the US; Cook County IL? Or, running close behind; Hudson County, NJ? Maybe because these go consistantly Democrat? Why not examine the widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin, where Democratic operatives were out on the street passing out cigarettes to the homeless to get them to vote specifically for Gore and where there are already signs of attempted voter fraud in 2004? (BTW; Wisconsin went Gore, but just barely) Seeing a pattern yet? This is a purely partisan action. All that this says is the aftermath of the 2004 elections is going to be nastier than 2000.
Full-screen Quicktime version? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Edit: Doh! I got the date wrong... stupid me... old story...
Lots of things can cause mushroom clouds. It may even be the case that NK is blowing up something (lots of TNT) to impress their own people and keep morale up while scaring everyone else. It may also be the case that they just detonated a nuke.
I'm sure the 154 killed are REAL impressed.Even better is the fact that they don't point to different bright spots. It's just the before and after picture is a cropped version of the main and annotated images.
True, the 14th Amendment does extend that ban, but only in the sense that a local government cannot pass a law that allows Congress to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The problem you run into with the current, very loose, legal interpritation is that you need to start poking holes in the Constitution to allow such things as death threats and incitements to violence and espionage (keep in mind those same court ruling seek to apply the First Amendment to the Executive and Judicial branches) to be prosecuted. Since we started down the road of "Congress shall make no law... abriding the freedom of speech... but" we now have these magical regulations for 'commercial' speech, and it's illegal now for you to scrounge up some money and buy a TV ad urging people to vote for a particular candidate close to an election. Those same fast and loose methods that people have used to broaden the scope of our Constitutional rights have, once deemed legitimate, been turned back on us to narrow those same rights. The result: no more Constitutional guarantees. Your rights are only as good as your bank account.
But they do. The only reason you don't hear them making a fuss as much is because the Wizard of Oz isn't on the NYT's best sellers list.
See, the notion that religion has no place in school goes against the notion that you should be free to practice it. Religion is an integral part of who you are, it's not something you check at the door. Seems you're confusing "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion."
Similarly, your freedom of speech is guaranteed if you don't say anything.
Mutual dislike between Muslims and Jews is nothing particularly new, I'd wager.
Check the textbook passages out here and tell me if the dislike is really mutual.
Except, last I checked, bolt cutters were not illegal.
What are you doing complaining about how off topic this is? You specifically brought these charges up. Don't expect to post something and not be challenged.
Whilst the Germans possibly formulated their bioethics arguments properly, the US ban on stem cell research...
FOUL ON THE PLAY! There is no ban on stem cell research in the US. Since Bush has taken office there has only been "steps forward" for the scientific community on this issue, none backwards.
While the main reason was most likely oil...
Someone really has to explain this to me. We've had ample opportunity to get loads and loads of cheap Iraqi oil for twelve years. We could have let Saddam take over Kuwait and taken him up on his offer to be America's gas station, or we could have gone the French and Russian route and made under the table deals with Saddam, or we could have moved to lessen the sanctions or at least not oppose attempts to do so. It would have been a lot better than the current situation of having our troops guard thousands of miles of oil infrastructure from terrorist attacks to just get the Iraqi economy going in order to get some oil which OPEC could counter by taking the same ammount off the market without breaking a sweat. No, it seems at every turn the US chose the path of most resistance to get Iraqi oil, if that was the goal.
a significant and unstated part of the Bush administration's reasoning was to shift the power balance in the Middle East, and that is something the Church has been wanting to do for quite a while.
Coincidentally, a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East is also something that people who really are interested in exterminating terrorism have been wanting to do as well. They may argue with the method, sure, but I find it hard to believe that the secular portion of American society doesn't want democracy (and thus, a shift in the balance of power) in the Middle East.
That's complete rubbish and incomrehensible to boot. The Church and other religious (and quasi-religious) organisations tend to grow in power over time,
Just like how the Catholic Church went from Holy Roman Empire to only being able to issue statements and hope other governments listen. Nope, doesn't work, sorry.
Public pro-abstinence statements, arguing against contraception.
Now whose spouting complete rubbish? If the George W. Bush making a pro-abstinence statement is government-sanctioned religious propaganda, so is it government-sanctioned religious propaganda when I say "Jesus Saves." The First Amendment protects everyone equally. You don't just give up all your freedoms when you're elected to office. These aren't laws, there is no legal requirement for you to abide by them, nor is there a federal mandate to "spread the word".
Support, funding and promotion of "faith-based initiatives"
Again, denial of funds to charitable organizations due to their religious affiliation is a law RESPECTING the establishment of religion. Granted, so are tax exemptions to churches based upon the sole fact that they are government recognized churches. If an individual or an organization can justify itself participating in a government program or being exempted from government responsibilities without referencing religion, then under the First Amendment the federal government should not be able to deny it. If it must reference religion, then the federal government should deny it.
Freeze legitimate scientific research because of fuzzy religious bullshit? Negative. You can research all you want and create as many new stem cell lines as you want. You just don't get government funding for it. Government funding is granted for the handful of stem cell lines, which is actually an improvement over what it was if you have no qualms with arbitrary definitions of human life. Why does Germany have a similar law? Because it is run by a bunch of radical Chrisitans, or because it has to deal with the specters of the likes of Mengele in its past? Invade another country on bogus grounds masking the real quasi-religious intent? Which is why we're remaking both Afgahnistan and Iraq into Chrisitian nations by having them declare Islam the official religion... right... Spend taxpayer money on blurring the line between church and state? Any attempt by government to enforce a seperation of church and state is itself a violation of the seperation of church and state. Removing legislation that does discriminates based on religion actually means FEWER laws that respect the establishment of religion. Issue government-sanctioned religious propaganda? When? Example? Erode traditional liberties through vaguely-worded and extremely broad legislation rushed through Congress on the back of the terrorist hysteria? OK, what the HELL does this have to do with Christianity?
I'd like to see how, considering Trey Parker has said Bush isn't in the film. Normally when they make fun of someone, they characature them. If Bush isn't going to be shown, he's unlikely to be made fun of, at least all that much. But hey, it's nice to see the story submitter jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by the facts.
Why arbitrary? Take a proposed, non-arbitrary, definition of a planet and apply it to moons:
- Orbits a planet
- Is rounded by its own gravity
Add a condition of it having to be more massive than the rest of the mass in a similar orbit if you so desire. Anything else is simply a "natural satellite." Of course, now Mars won't have any moons and the original Doom story line would have to be modified to fit the correct terminology. Ah hell, geeks would never go for that!Slight problem with your definition: Sedna is not a planet. A small planet is just that; a planet. A planetoid would be an object that wasn't good enough to be called a planet, but came close, such as Ceres. Sure, it's round, but it doesn't possess the majority of the mass in a similar orbit, so not a planet.
Except I'm not asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just a single instance where you can say an interview was probably denyed because of who footage was given to. As you can't even meet this increadibly low threshold, I'll put the theory in the same category as the fake Moon landing and the communist plot to flourinate our water supply. Nah, make that lower; those conspiracy theorist actually try to back up their accusations.
If it can't be proven then the position is simply a matter of faith and has no real place in rational discussion (and certainly no place as an article on a news site), don't you think?
BTW, when I was talking about "the submiter" I was not referring to you, but to MacDork. Just want to clear that up so there are no hard feelings.
No, but surely you can at least show a causal link somewhere, right?