Well that and the fat-asses that try to justify being fat through this study will ignore the fact that they are grossly obese. Unless you're a tall bodybuilder, you shouldn't weigh more than 200 lbs, ever. Yet those are the people that think "big is beautful" or "fat is in," or even healthy.
Indeed. The fact that they use BMI in the study at all shows that this is a flawed study, because the BM Index itself is flawed. Only a few inches taller or shorter, and bam, you're obese / underweight. Have a lot of muscle? Again, you've got a good chance of being told your obese.
No Ron Paul doesn't want Roe V Wade overturned to make it law a woman has to carry a fetus 'til birth, the USA Constitution says nothing about it and since it doesn't the 10th amendment leaves it to the states or the people.
If you will recall the issue ended up in the SC because the states already decided to ban it. In 70s. In NY (the liberal state mentioned above).
What Ron Paul wants is for the states to decide for themselves whether abortion is legal in each state.
They had, and they decided on laws which were unconsitutional. Hence the SC decision. That's actually how the system is supposed to work.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003) To save a woman's life he would allow abortions. Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000) Here is the only vote against partial birth abortions, not all just so called partial birth, the one above (Oct 2003) allows them if the woman's life is in danger.
If he was really for rights, he'd have voted NO to both of those as well. The explaination he should have used would be "its not the governements business what a woman does with her body and whether or not she chooses to reproduce."
The page linked to above has more of his stances. Some of them some will like and others will hate. Both Democrats and Republicans, neo cons and neo liberals. Basically that what a Libertarian is, Libertarians stand between Democrats and Republicans, neo conservatives and neo liberals, ie liberty and small government.
I'll stick to his offical site to read up on his stances.
Way to dig two millimeters below the surface; an easy way to have any "suspicions" confirmed.
Oh, I'm sorry that I only, you know, read what was on his offical site. I did go through the entire site though, but you're right, its MY fault he didn't adequately explain himself ON HIS OWN SITE.
If you check his voting record, you'd see he's been the most consistent 'no' vote on any federal spending not explicitly authorized or reasonably inferred by constitutional text.
Is he going to get rid of the CIA, NSA, etc? Will he stop the FCC from fining for "indecent content?" What bills has he introduced or supported?
He's for de-federalizing the Abortion issue, which is a much more principled position than his partisan fellow travelers', and which in all likelihood would lead to liberalizing abortion in many liberal states (e.g. Massachusetts, New York). His desire to overturn Roe v. Wade is entirely in keeping with his stated position on Federal and State powers. That he is personally against abortion is simply red meat for the "value voters" (remember what party he's running in!). Heck, I agree with Roe v. Wade being constitutionally absurd, and I'm pro-choice. On this and many issues, R. Paul has consistently voted against government interference even in cases where his personal beliefs would compel him to want to interfere.
Why should that particular issue be de-federalized? The Constitution restricts the state governments from interfering in some rights, why is it beyond the scope of the Fed to say that another right is being wrongly infringed? The Bill of Rights is not an enumerated list; they're just the rights explicetly protected, but that doesn't mean other rights don't exist.
He self-describes himself as pro-life. If he was putting his personal beliefs aside, he would be pro-choice, while saying he'd rather people used alternatives. A pro-choicer would not want to remove states rights, knowing full well that states would likely re-enact bans.
He's talked and proposed legislation for reducing the size of the federal government in significant ways, including radically downsizing the budgets and authority of many executive departments and police agencies. That means real reductions in federal power on issues of education, gun rights, and substance use, among others.
Certainly those would be a good things. I haven't seen anywhere that he wants to end Social Security though, phasing it out. Certainly someone so keen on individual rights doesn't want to take money from my paycheck because someone else didn't plan well for their retirement?
He has spoken consistently over the past twenty years on all these issues, as well as consistently against using tax codes as a cudgel against undesirable groups and against using federal carrot/stick money policies to co-opt state policy making. He's against the Drug war. Against corporate welfare and subsidies. Against federal regulation of the Internet or any other media/info medium.
It seems his stance on SS is no consistent. It shouldn't be there at all. Some regulations are good. Like those that ensure that workers get a lunch break, and needn't become slaves to their employer to survive. Business owners have proven they are not socially responsible.
It's fine to disagree with a candidate's positions (and there are more than a few of Paul's that I'm iffy on), but such disagreements should be predicated on more than a five-second look tainted by preconceptions of what you assume you will find. Whatever Paul is, the vast majority (supporters and detractors) can at least agree he is not "more of the same crap."
I read his site with an open mind. I didn't see anything really signficant that other politicians haven't said before.
The SC, through R v W, asserted that its a woman's RIGHT. What Ron Paul seems to want would be similar to revoking the First amendment, "to let the states decide." I don't support anyone that tries to remove rigths. From his own site: See I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
In other words, he DOES want to work to ban the practice. He wants to work to infringe on an established woman's right. He's only trying to do it under the guise of "state's rights."
His platform is based upon upholding the Constitution that all of the other candidates seem to have conveniently forgotten about, and his voting record supports what he says.
So does he think we should remove the Equal Protection amendment too, so states can decide those things too? I don't think so, I think that its part of the Federal governments job to protect rights, even when the states don't want to.
As far as upholding the Constitution goes, does he plan on removing the ability of the FCC to fine over "indecent" material (in violation of the First Amendment)? What about the standing army our founders so hated? Is he going to remove that as well? What about the SEC? The CIA? If he's not (and I didn't see any indication he would) then he's just another right wing wackjob trying to hide his agenda under "state's rights."
Agreed; my city rolled out fiber and in addition to internet they offer phone and cable tv. Quality is MUCH better than Crapcast, and Verizon DSL doesn't even reach a good part of the city.
Huh... his only section on Life & Liberty is his desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In other words, for FORCE a woman to have a baby she doesn't want in her.
That, and I never saw anything about REDUCING the power the government has either. He just promised not to increase it more. Ya, sure.
My suspicsions confirmed; he's more of the same crap.
Will Ron Paul effectively dismantle most of the Federal government (FBI, CIA, NSA, our standing army, the FCC, etc)? If not, he's no different than anyone else.
Huh? I think you need to READ what was actually posted. East Germany, you know, the nation that no longer exists that was part of the Soviet Union since the end of WW2 to the fall of the Berlin Wall? You DO know about that right? East, not Eastern!
I think you need to lookup the facts more; first, nothing currently requires you to have a DL. Second, you CAN buy those restricted items if you have state issued photo id (distinctly different than a DL).
I'd like to go back and rethink why as free americans we need permission to use roads which we as americans fund.
Why should government be stopping anyone from drinking? That's a job for the parents in my book. It also takes away the "I want to drink because I'm not supposed to" attitude.
No, it didn't read like that to me. Marketing wouldn't ever dare say that under certain cases the discount card is not for you. They'd try to explain why everyone needs it.
So you state there are lots, and name two? And the second one having a much higher rate of things like domestic violence and corruption, and you think it matters if they get drunk once in a while? In small towns, yes, you can run into people you met at work, but even that is rare. In larger cities, its a non-issue.
I'm not sure why you brought up personal behavior that affects your job performance; I already clearly stated that is an issue the employer should handle (and the only time an employees personal life is relevent).
I can't imagine why anyone would accept a situation where their job affects their personal life, unless the pay is enough to cover that. Otherwise there's no reason to accept such an answer.
Well then you must realize that your point about the people not upgrading to HD will quickly grow smaller is not valid, and that there will be many SD sets around for some time to come. You're not in a majority.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that they excluded smokers and found the same results. Opps.
Well that and the fat-asses that try to justify being fat through this study will ignore the fact that they are grossly obese. Unless you're a tall bodybuilder, you shouldn't weigh more than 200 lbs, ever. Yet those are the people that think "big is beautful" or "fat is in," or even healthy.
That's kind of a well duh thing isn't it? As a rule, people spend more time walking up or down stairs than mountain climbing.
Indeed. The fact that they use BMI in the study at all shows that this is a flawed study, because the BM Index itself is flawed. Only a few inches taller or shorter, and bam, you're obese / underweight. Have a lot of muscle? Again, you've got a good chance of being told your obese.
Well, its all relative I suppose.
It would actually, since federal law prohibits an employer from discriminating based on age.
They are actually planning on allowing competition as well. Just the way it should be; city owns the wires, companies provider services over them.
No Ron Paul doesn't want Roe V Wade overturned to make it law a woman has to carry a fetus 'til birth, the USA Constitution says nothing about it and since it doesn't the 10th amendment leaves it to the states or the people.
If you will recall the issue ended up in the SC because the states already decided to ban it. In 70s. In NY (the liberal state mentioned above).
What Ron Paul wants is for the states to decide for themselves whether abortion is legal in each state.
They had, and they decided on laws which were unconsitutional. Hence the SC decision. That's actually how the system is supposed to work.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
To save a woman's life he would allow abortions.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Here is the only vote against partial birth abortions, not all just so called partial birth, the one above (Oct 2003) allows them if the woman's life is in danger.
If he was really for rights, he'd have voted NO to both of those as well. The explaination he should have used would be "its not the governements business what a woman does with her body and whether or not she chooses to reproduce."
The page linked to above has more of his stances. Some of them some will like and others will hate. Both Democrats and Republicans, neo cons and neo liberals. Basically that what a Libertarian is, Libertarians stand between Democrats and Republicans, neo conservatives and neo liberals, ie liberty and small government.
I'll stick to his offical site to read up on his stances.
Way to dig two millimeters below the surface; an easy way to have any "suspicions" confirmed.
Oh, I'm sorry that I only, you know, read what was on his offical site. I did go through the entire site though, but you're right, its MY fault he didn't adequately explain himself ON HIS OWN SITE.
If you check his voting record, you'd see he's been the most consistent 'no' vote on any federal spending not explicitly authorized or reasonably inferred by constitutional text.
Is he going to get rid of the CIA, NSA, etc? Will he stop the FCC from fining for "indecent content?" What bills has he introduced or supported?
He's for de-federalizing the Abortion issue, which is a much more principled position than his partisan fellow travelers', and which in all likelihood would lead to liberalizing abortion in many liberal states (e.g. Massachusetts, New York). His desire to overturn Roe v. Wade is entirely in keeping with his stated position on Federal and State powers. That he is personally against abortion is simply red meat for the "value voters" (remember what party he's running in!). Heck, I agree with Roe v. Wade being constitutionally absurd, and I'm pro-choice. On this and many issues, R. Paul has consistently voted against government interference even in cases where his personal beliefs would compel him to want to interfere.
Why should that particular issue be de-federalized? The Constitution restricts the state governments from interfering in some rights, why is it beyond the scope of the Fed to say that another right is being wrongly infringed? The Bill of Rights is not an enumerated list; they're just the rights explicetly protected, but that doesn't mean other rights don't exist.
He self-describes himself as pro-life. If he was putting his personal beliefs aside, he would be pro-choice, while saying he'd rather people used alternatives. A pro-choicer would not want to remove states rights, knowing full well that states would likely re-enact bans.
He's talked and proposed legislation for reducing the size of the federal government in significant ways, including radically downsizing the budgets and authority of many executive departments and police agencies. That means real reductions in federal power on issues of education, gun rights, and substance use, among others.
Certainly those would be a good things. I haven't seen anywhere that he wants to end Social Security though, phasing it out. Certainly someone so keen on individual rights doesn't want to take money from my paycheck because someone else didn't plan well for their retirement?
He has spoken consistently over the past twenty years on all these issues, as well as consistently against using tax codes as a cudgel against undesirable groups and against using federal carrot/stick money policies to co-opt state policy making. He's against the Drug war. Against corporate welfare and subsidies. Against federal regulation of the Internet or any other media/info medium.
It seems his stance on SS is no consistent. It shouldn't be there at all. Some regulations are good. Like those that ensure that workers get a lunch break, and needn't become slaves to their employer to survive. Business owners have proven they are not socially responsible.
It's fine to disagree with a candidate's positions (and there are more than a few of Paul's that I'm iffy on), but such disagreements should be predicated on more than a five-second look tainted by preconceptions of what you assume you will find. Whatever Paul is, the vast majority (supporters and detractors) can at least agree he is not "more of the same crap."
I read his site with an open mind. I didn't see anything really signficant that other politicians haven't said before.
The SC, through R v W, asserted that its a woman's RIGHT. What Ron Paul seems to want would be similar to revoking the First amendment, "to let the states decide." I don't support anyone that tries to remove rigths. From his own site: See I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
In other words, he DOES want to work to ban the practice. He wants to work to infringe on an established woman's right. He's only trying to do it under the guise of "state's rights."
His platform is based upon upholding the Constitution that all of the other candidates seem to have conveniently forgotten about, and his voting record supports what he says.
So does he think we should remove the Equal Protection amendment too, so states can decide those things too? I don't think so, I think that its part of the Federal governments job to protect rights, even when the states don't want to.
As far as upholding the Constitution goes, does he plan on removing the ability of the FCC to fine over "indecent" material (in violation of the First Amendment)? What about the standing army our founders so hated? Is he going to remove that as well? What about the SEC? The CIA? If he's not (and I didn't see any indication he would) then he's just another right wing wackjob trying to hide his agenda under "state's rights."
Agreed; my city rolled out fiber and in addition to internet they offer phone and cable tv. Quality is MUCH better than Crapcast, and Verizon DSL doesn't even reach a good part of the city.
I dunno, if I was in RadioHead's spot, I really wouldn't be thinking about that. I'd be happy with my $8 millon.
Huh... his only section on Life & Liberty is his desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In other words, for FORCE a woman to have a baby she doesn't want in her.
That, and I never saw anything about REDUCING the power the government has either. He just promised not to increase it more. Ya, sure.
My suspicsions confirmed; he's more of the same crap.
I hear about him on this site, and sometimes in relation to his fund-raising on the radio.
Doh... I forgot about that part. Thanks for correcting me.
Constitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs
Really? I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Can you point out where it says that? Or where it mentions IDs at all for that matter?
Will Ron Paul effectively dismantle most of the Federal government (FBI, CIA, NSA, our standing army, the FCC, etc)? If not, he's no different than anyone else.
Huh? I think you need to READ what was actually posted. East Germany, you know, the nation that no longer exists that was part of the Soviet Union since the end of WW2 to the fall of the Berlin Wall? You DO know about that right? East, not Eastern!
I think you need to lookup the facts more; first, nothing currently requires you to have a DL. Second, you CAN buy those restricted items if you have state issued photo id (distinctly different than a DL).
I'd like to go back and rethink why as free americans we need permission to use roads which we as americans fund.
Why should government be stopping anyone from drinking? That's a job for the parents in my book. It also takes away the "I want to drink because I'm not supposed to" attitude.
No, it didn't read like that to me. Marketing wouldn't ever dare say that under certain cases the discount card is not for you. They'd try to explain why everyone needs it.
So you state there are lots, and name two? And the second one having a much higher rate of things like domestic violence and corruption, and you think it matters if they get drunk once in a while? In small towns, yes, you can run into people you met at work, but even that is rare. In larger cities, its a non-issue.
I'm not sure why you brought up personal behavior that affects your job performance; I already clearly stated that is an issue the employer should handle (and the only time an employees personal life is relevent).
I can't imagine why anyone would accept a situation where their job affects their personal life, unless the pay is enough to cover that. Otherwise there's no reason to accept such an answer.
One that was blown to bits by a mortor fired from two miles away?
Well then you must realize that your point about the people not upgrading to HD will quickly grow smaller is not valid, and that there will be many SD sets around for some time to come. You're not in a majority.
I didn't listen to him either, but I did care about why he was fired, because its part of a distrubing trend of citizens trying to censor each other.