Yeah, I agree completely that he has to choose his battles. I found the healthcare debate to be incredibly surreal yet depressing in how mainstream politicians fed the frenzy of lies and. I think though that Obama risks sacrificing far too much. Perhaps it's the reality of American politics that I'm trying not to grasp because the truth is damned uncomfortable.
And this is the problem and partly why we in the western world call things politics and not ruling the people - you have to make compromices.
Hate the game - not the player, is a poor excuse in Obama's case. Obama has not compromised- he has instead performed an about-turn on the principles for which many people elected him to uphold. It's asinine to justify the sorry state of the administration by overplaying the need to compromise.
The lack of updates and SCO's habit of suing its own customers would have been pretty good hints to move to a different platform. Companies can be a bit flakey - such as Oracle when Ellison has one of his fancies, but SCO took the biscuit. The only way it could have been more obvious was if Darl McBride would have used SCO money to run weekly infomercials in he'd scream colourful abuse at his shoes before making sweet love to them.
Actually, I'd pay to see those infomercials! McBride probably wasn't flooded with job offers after SCO, so maybe he'll do it if we can rustle-up some cash. The money he trousered while guiding SCO to its doom can't last forever.
It was due to Tony Blair's belief that the special transatlantic friendship required the UK to act like a girl who drops anything and comes running when her boyfriend wants a fuck, in the belief that being completely servile to a disinterested bully will one-day lead to a marriage proposal. Same pattern of thought during the second gulf war. Give America what it wants in the hope of maintaining this special relationship and giving the UK influence over America's actions. Blair would have skull fucked a puppy if he believed it'd lead to Bush walking him down the aisle at some dingy Vegas chapel.
The UK signed up to an Interestingly one-sided extradition treaty which is best summed up as follows:
US: We want on of your citizens for x crimes UK: Do you have the kind of evidence we would require in order to press charges? US: No UK: He'll be on the 2:30 to O'Hare
You're a climate change denier, and it seems that your approach is to play the semantics game. Call it what you want and accept that when toy complain about the term climate change as being too vague, and a sinister attempt by scientists to allow wiggle room for their theories, ask yourself why you end up seated with 9/11 deniers and other assorted nutjobs who waste time with this paranoid pedantry.
That was very sneaky. You claim that the phrase "There is no single and universal morality" is atheist code for there bring no morality at all, yourself claiming that morality must be absolute or not at all. You then closed by claiming that we all agree that morality exists ergo morality must be absolute.
There is no basis outside of dogma and scripture to claim that morality is inherent to our universe, let alone that it was put in to place by a divine arbiter of right and wrong. I have just as much evidence and justification in the claim that a dance can only be a dance if it's a tango.
Granted many morals are common, but it requires far fewer assumptions to cite culture and biological similarity than it does to postulate some improbably powerful architect. It should be painfully obvious that Christians appear unable to agree on this universal morality.
Security expert probably means that this is the guy in the office who knows how to reset email passwords when hus colleagues forget theirs. It's the same way anyone in an office of non-techies will attain ubergeek status on successfully clearing a paper jam.
Jesus wept. There is no part of this story that is not insane.
Indeed. The only reason to ever link to the Daily Mail is when providing the punchline to a joke. It's the national newspaper of the stultifyingly uniformed angry white middle-class meatbag.
For the sake of argument I'll agree completely that climate change is largely baloney. Can you explain though how the term climate change is an attempt at obfuscation?
Yeah, no evidence. Even giving the Vatican benefit of the doubt that would amount to denial of epic proportions, Bishops and Cardinals are hardly at the bottom of the foodchain, yet they were complicit in church's practice of handling child rape in a nice quiet fashion that served the church more than those affected by serial rapists being protected in the name of Christ.
Yes, you identify with this corrupt and vile church then you are indeed a cunt. I see little of Christ in this church.
Global warming was a clumsy name. People hear of and think they'll have nicer summers, or take a particularly cold spell as evidence against climate change. On a similar note, survival of the fittest is a poor description to use with laymen because many imagine it to mean that evolutionary processes favour the physically strongest or fastest species.
They're not all insane, just not all Catholics think seriously about or understand the more esoteric aspects of their religion. To mist here it seems to be about weddings, baptisms, a quick breeze through the gospels and the occasional mass. I note that many Catholics in Ireland don't appear to share the Pope's views regarding condoms. Apostolic succession and the divine hand in hus appointment - the Pope can be ignored.
Esoteric magical beliefs aside, I can't credit anyone who'd identify as a Catholic with having moral integrity. I'd have more respect for a Catholic who'd retain their belief in God while walking away from the church. Anyone remaining a dues paying Catholic is offering tacit endorsement of its vile practices.
As an English Catholic convert, I am too scared of getting slapped down on/. to post anything on such subjects.
For good reason. The Catholic position on such matters is insane and would almost be comical if not for the damage this fruity little social club of yours has caused and will continue to cause with your support. Is your peace of mind worth a child having to suck the cock of a grown man forced by a stupid reading of Paul to repress his own sexual urges? Even accepting that the majority of Catholics do not force sex on children, the evidence for cover-ups at the highest levels is so great that anyone still identifying as Catholic must surely be in serious denial, or perhaps just a morally bankrupt idol worshiping and bead juggling cunt of a person.
That article is a compendium of slippery slopes and the usual Catholic bullshit. Schiavo as an example? She was meat by the time they stopped feeding her.
They also fail to note how the process runs in Oregon works. It's not as if one could wheel grandma in today and collect the corpse this afternoon. Most who eventually receive their medication don't actually use it. Yes it can be abused, but Catholic logic kissing in public is something that inevitably leads to blowjobs on buses.
Fuck Catholics. If they can make a good argument supported by something more substantial than scare-mongering conjecture and sanctity of life at all costs then let's hear it. If all they have is sanctimonious platitudes then they should note that their ongoing protection of men who rape children places them pretty low on scale of people who we should give a shit about listening to on matters of ethics.
I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!
Yeah, and there's no requirement to register a copyright. Everything thing produced automatically becomes copyrighted so long as it can be copyright protected. The Berne convention standardised this in most countries.
I think you meant to post this comment over at www.dailymail.co.uk. They probably have some tips for recognizing Doodlebugs. Hint - listen for a buzzing noise.
That's really not a sensible line to draw. Any law that criminalizes offense will be highly subjective. Libel is one thing but laws against being offended are pretty much a competition to see who can complain the loudest.
I haven't encountered that arguement regarding Darwin, but Creationists do generally spout nonsense on a par with it. They pretty much set themselves up as a punchline for many jokes.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to Barack H. Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Yeah, it's difficult to come away without feeling that he won it for not being Bush. It'd be a different story if they'd awarded it on completion of a successful term in office. He has some pretty notable achievements prior to becoming president, but the above quoted rationale is so hopelessly vague that it does appear to be a bodge.
Yeah, if it's a proper noun (as in referring to *the* Internet, then it should be capitalised). Back in the day the word internet may have been used as a common noun to describe *an* internet. That practice has probably declined.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I agree completely that he has to choose his battles. I found the healthcare debate to be incredibly surreal yet depressing in how mainstream politicians fed the frenzy of lies and. I think though that Obama risks sacrificing far too much. Perhaps it's the reality of American politics that I'm trying not to grasp because the truth is damned uncomfortable.
And this is the problem and partly why we in the western world call things politics and not ruling the people - you have to make compromices.
Hate the game - not the player, is a poor excuse in Obama's case. Obama has not compromised- he has instead performed an about-turn on the principles for which many people elected him to uphold. It's asinine to justify the sorry state of the administration by overplaying the need to compromise.
The lack of updates and SCO's habit of suing its own customers would have been pretty good hints to move to a different platform. Companies can be a bit flakey - such as Oracle when Ellison has one of his fancies, but SCO took the biscuit. The only way it could have been more obvious was if Darl McBride would have used SCO money to run weekly infomercials in he'd scream colourful abuse at his shoes before making sweet love to them.
Actually, I'd pay to see those infomercials! McBride probably wasn't flooded with job offers after SCO, so maybe he'll do it if we can rustle-up some cash. The money he trousered while guiding SCO to its doom can't last forever.
Yeah, that's the one.
It was due to Tony Blair's belief that the special transatlantic friendship required the UK to act like a girl who drops anything and comes running when her boyfriend wants a fuck, in the belief that being completely servile to a disinterested bully will one-day lead to a marriage proposal. Same pattern of thought during the second gulf war. Give America what it wants in the hope of maintaining this special relationship and giving the UK influence over America's actions. Blair would have skull fucked a puppy if he believed it'd lead to Bush walking him down the aisle at some dingy Vegas chapel.
The UK signed up to an Interestingly one-sided extradition treaty which is best summed up as follows:
US: We want on of your citizens for x crimes
UK: Do you have the kind of evidence we would require in order to press charges?
US: No
UK: He'll be on the 2:30 to O'Hare
You're a climate change denier, and it seems that your approach is to play the semantics game. Call it what you want and accept that when toy complain about the term climate change as being too vague, and a sinister attempt by scientists to allow wiggle room for their theories, ask yourself why you end up seated with 9/11 deniers and other assorted nutjobs who waste time with this paranoid pedantry.
Riverat1 has if covered.
That was very sneaky. You claim that the phrase "There is no single and universal morality" is atheist code for there bring no morality at all, yourself claiming that morality must be absolute or not at all. You then closed by claiming that we all agree that morality exists ergo morality must be absolute.
There is no basis outside of dogma and scripture to claim that morality is inherent to our universe, let alone that it was put in to place by a divine arbiter of right and wrong. I have just as much evidence and justification in the claim that a dance can only be a dance if it's a tango.
Granted many morals are common, but it requires far fewer assumptions to cite culture and biological similarity than it does to postulate some improbably powerful architect. It should be painfully obvious that Christians appear unable to agree on this universal morality.
Security expert probably means that this is the guy in the office who knows how to reset email passwords when hus colleagues forget theirs. It's the same way anyone in an office of non-techies will attain ubergeek status on successfully clearing a paper jam.
Jesus wept. There is no part of this story that is not insane.
Indeed. The only reason to ever link to the Daily Mail is when providing the punchline to a joke. It's the national newspaper of the stultifyingly uniformed angry white middle-class meatbag.
For the sake of argument I'll agree completely that climate change is largely baloney. Can you explain though how the term climate change is an attempt at obfuscation?
Yeah, no evidence. Even giving the Vatican benefit of the doubt that would amount to denial of epic proportions, Bishops and Cardinals are hardly at the bottom of the foodchain, yet they were complicit in church's practice of handling child rape in a nice quiet fashion that served the church more than those affected by serial rapists being protected in the name of Christ.
Yes, you identify with this corrupt and vile church then you are indeed a cunt. I see little of Christ in this church.
Global warming was a clumsy name. People hear of and think they'll have nicer summers, or take a particularly cold spell as evidence against climate change. On a similar note, survival of the fittest is a poor description to use with laymen because many imagine it to mean that evolutionary processes favour the physically strongest or fastest species.
The self-proclaimed universal church isn't really part of my universe except when it meddles, which in Ireland it's been doing for quite some time.
They're not all insane, just not all Catholics think seriously about or understand the more esoteric aspects of their religion. To mist here it seems to be about weddings, baptisms, a quick breeze through the gospels and the occasional mass. I note that many Catholics in Ireland don't appear to share the Pope's views regarding condoms. Apostolic succession and the divine hand in hus appointment - the Pope can be ignored.
Esoteric magical beliefs aside, I can't credit anyone who'd identify as a Catholic with having moral integrity. I'd have more respect for a Catholic who'd retain their belief in God while walking away from the church. Anyone remaining a dues paying Catholic is offering tacit endorsement of its vile practices.
As an English Catholic convert, I am too scared of getting slapped down on /. to post anything on such subjects.
For good reason. The Catholic position on such matters is insane and would almost be comical if not for the damage this fruity little social club of yours has caused and will continue to cause with your support. Is your peace of mind worth a child having to suck the cock of a grown man forced by a stupid reading of Paul to repress his own sexual urges? Even accepting that the majority of Catholics do not force sex on children, the evidence for cover-ups at the highest levels is so great that anyone still identifying as Catholic must surely be in serious denial, or perhaps just a morally bankrupt idol worshiping and bead juggling cunt of a person.
That article is a compendium of slippery slopes and the usual Catholic bullshit. Schiavo as an example? She was meat by the time they stopped feeding her.
They also fail to note how the process runs in Oregon works. It's not as if one could wheel grandma in today and collect the corpse this afternoon. Most who eventually receive their medication don't actually use it. Yes it can be abused, but Catholic logic kissing in public is something that inevitably leads to blowjobs on buses.
Fuck Catholics. If they can make a good argument supported by something more substantial than scare-mongering conjecture and sanctity of life at all costs then let's hear it. If all they have is sanctimonious platitudes then they should note that their ongoing protection of men who rape children places them pretty low on scale of people who we should give a shit about listening to on matters of ethics.
I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!
Yeah, and there's no requirement to register a copyright. Everything thing produced automatically becomes copyrighted so long as it can be copyright protected. The Berne convention standardised this in most countries.
Whoosh!
I think you meant to post this comment over at www.dailymail.co.uk. They probably have some tips for recognizing Doodlebugs. Hint - listen for a buzzing noise.
That's really not a sensible line to draw. Any law that criminalizes offense will be highly subjective. Libel is one thing but laws against being offended are pretty much a competition to see who can complain the loudest.
I haven't encountered that arguement regarding Darwin, but Creationists do generally spout nonsense on a par with it. They pretty much set themselves up as a punchline for many jokes.
On the Nobel site they have the following to say:
The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to Barack H. Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/
Yeah, it's difficult to come away without feeling that he won it for not being Bush. It'd be a different story if they'd awarded it on completion of a successful term in office. He has some pretty notable achievements prior to becoming president, but the above quoted rationale is so hopelessly vague that it does appear to be a bodge.
Yeah, if it's a proper noun (as in referring to *the* Internet, then it should be capitalised). Back in the day the word internet may have been used as a common noun to describe *an* internet. That practice has probably declined.