You're looking at my statement wrong(yes, I can't resist talking to the AC's). I said a concerted effort. That means I actively chose something other than red meat. That doesn't imply that I currently can't control my desire for red meat. Generally, the only time I go after red meat is when I want a slab of beef known as a "ribeye". I mainly trim the excess fats and other "good" parts of the cut because it's just too much fat for my tastes now. Also, could the CORRELATION of red meat to heart attacks doesn't generally take in the rest of the diet. IE, a person who actively choses not to eat red meat will, generally, seek out healthier alternatives in all other foods. Or, what about the guy who loves his steak, crusted in pepercorns and salt, and to go with the meal he has a big ass baked potato with butter(real) and sour cream, and why not toss in a few pieces of garlic french bread? Like was said by a smarter man than me: Correlation != Confirmation and "It's all lies, damned lies, and statistics."
It all comes down to the individual and education. Once you know what something does to you, it's up to you to make the decision about what it's worth to you to do that something.
Speaking as an ex-"lazy slob", it does have EVERYthing to do with being Lazy AND making BAD choices about food. All the options are there, it's just in America we tend to make the WRONG choices. Either cause it's faster, cheaper, or it just tastes better.
And the day I start making a concerted effort to eat "way less red meat", is the day I think I start thinking what the hell did I do this for?
easier to make a bomb with Diesel then hydrogen
Ahem...
Diesel is non-explosive unless put under high pressure. So if you wan't to make a bomb, generally you mix with other chemicals to make it explosive.
Last I checked you just had to have a container and a heat source to make a nice boom with hydrogen.
If you're going to tell people to shut up every time they post something you disagree with and can't counter why the fuck are you even posting on slashdot?
These are Republicans, not conservatives. It's really not wise to confuse to the two. Republicans only believe in rights for Repbulicans. Anyone who's not Republican (or voting for them) should not be entitled to any rights, especially the right to vote.
Make that Republicans AND Democrats, and then you have an accurate statement.
Basically, the WorldNetDaily either is too stupid to understand what happened or is ignoring facts. Either way, it raises questions about their competence and/or honesty. If they are stupid or dishonest about this, then what else are they wrong about?
I think you spelled that wrong. It's spelled POLITICAL ACTIVISTS. Then you may correct the grammar for the remainder of the comment
On top of that, they are crying about something that is really not important to today's politics. Bill Clinton is sooo yesterday's news, and while I'm not in favour of censoring anti-Clinton satire, this seems not very newsworthy.
Of course if it was the other way around, conservatives flagging a liberal satire of Bush, it would be in the NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and someone would likely get sued for it.
However, I agree, the poster did need to point out that a conservative group was doing the pointing and talking this time.
And last I checked, they were private institutions that aren't "fundamentalist christian". I was merely rebuking the sweeping generalization you made about what a word meant with specific examples.
So they want them to "study religion". Big whoop. They aren't enforcing their rules based on that study. And, it's currently just a consideration. Also, by studying religion(not that you have to subscribe to that religion) is extremely useful in attempting to understand someone else's point of view.
Only after essence points to a peer-reviewed study that "most" (that's 50% +1 person) killers ARE wracked with guilt. Still, based on that, I don't like the odds settling at (50% - 1 person) will commit murder.
Ok, go try to stand outside the ACLU's home office with a bible and cross talking about sinners, hell, and damnation. See how long you get to stay there
the oppression of wealthy by taxing their income more than someone who "works for a living"
Ahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha.
So it's ok to tax someone on an arbitray scale because you think it's "for the greater good"? OK, I think for the greater good, you should have to live at 3% above the poverty line and anything else you make is given to your neighbors who have to put up with you.
I've never heard people who are poor say they need to be taxed more, so why should someone who has money get taxed more? Just because they can?
I don't know... It could be a massive legal ploy. Since they will undoubtably send music (In DIGITAL form no less), they can draw all the RIAA lawyers to an Aztec Pyramid. Hopefully, the will re-instated human sacrifice at that point!
Off Topic:
I always find it funny that the RIAA is trying every way possible to plug the anal log hole. At least they could start putting small packets of vasoline in every CD for when they finally come after you.
Slashdot Mirror
You're looking at my statement wrong(yes, I can't resist talking to the AC's). I said a concerted effort. That means I actively chose something other than red meat. That doesn't imply that I currently can't control my desire for red meat. Generally, the only time I go after red meat is when I want a slab of beef known as a "ribeye". I mainly trim the excess fats and other "good" parts of the cut because it's just too much fat for my tastes now. Also, could the CORRELATION of red meat to heart attacks doesn't generally take in the rest of the diet. IE, a person who actively choses not to eat red meat will, generally, seek out healthier alternatives in all other foods. Or, what about the guy who loves his steak, crusted in pepercorns and salt, and to go with the meal he has a big ass baked potato with butter(real) and sour cream, and why not toss in a few pieces of garlic french bread? Like was said by a smarter man than me: Correlation != Confirmation and "It's all lies, damned lies, and statistics." It all comes down to the individual and education. Once you know what something does to you, it's up to you to make the decision about what it's worth to you to do that something.
Speaking as an ex-"lazy slob", it does have EVERYthing to do with being Lazy AND making BAD choices about food. All the options are there, it's just in America we tend to make the WRONG choices. Either cause it's faster, cheaper, or it just tastes better.
And the day I start making a concerted effort to eat "way less red meat", is the day I think I start thinking what the hell did I do this for?
Nah, You'll just need to dump tar over all the pannels... that will solve the problem quickly enough...
That's not what UCLA Political Scientists find.
Media Bias is Real
Sorry, I don't want to see 325lb. Wanda who thinks she's one sexy b1tch shaking what her momma (and 25 years of McDonalds) gave her.
However, when Demi Moore, Yasmen Bleeth, Hedi Klum, et. al. start stripping, then I'll be on YouTube in a heartbeat.
However, I agree, the poster did need to point out that a conservative group was doing the pointing and talking this time.
And last I checked, they were private institutions that aren't "fundamentalist christian". I was merely rebuking the sweeping generalization you made about what a word meant with specific examples.
So they want them to "study religion". Big whoop. They aren't enforcing their rules based on that study. And, it's currently just a consideration. Also, by studying religion(not that you have to subscribe to that religion) is extremely useful in attempting to understand someone else's point of view.
Harvard? Yale? Stanford? Just a few examples off the top of my head. I definately wouldn't put them in the "funamentalist christian" category...
that, was kina the point... a few extra letters and WHAM!
We're so tough, we can easily beat up a caveman!
Next time you want to make one of "those" generalilzations, I recommend you use this broom.
Come on... you know you want to.
Only after essence points to a peer-reviewed study that "most" (that's 50% +1 person) killers ARE wracked with guilt. Still, based on that, I don't like the odds settling at (50% - 1 person) will commit murder.
So it's ok to tax someone on an arbitray scale because you think it's "for the greater good"? OK, I think for the greater good, you should have to live at 3% above the poverty line and anything else you make is given to your neighbors who have to put up with you.
I've never heard people who are poor say they need to be taxed more, so why should someone who has money get taxed more? Just because they can?
I don't know... It could be a massive legal ploy. Since they will undoubtably send music (In DIGITAL form no less), they can draw all the RIAA lawyers to an Aztec Pyramid. Hopefully, the will re-instated human sacrifice at that point!
I always find it funny that the RIAA is trying every way possible to plug the anal log hole. At least they could start putting small packets of vasoline in every CD for when they finally come after you.