You say you're offended by the attacks against Republicans, but then go on to say you're fairly Democratic.
What if there's a world outside pure party politics, where the winning team is the one who comes up with the answer that works? In that world you could pick the answers that work for you from either party, without being too worried about what party you belong to.
I initially misread your sentence about "government acting like my daddy". The thing is, both parties think government is your daddy. The Republicans think dad should tell the children what they can and can't do and freak out when the son turns gay. The Democrats think dad should help pay for the kids to get through college (with 'tax' dollars) and support the son even if he turns gay. Nation-as-family can be a metaphor for government. What kind of Dad would you like to have?
Internal consistency (between moral concepts) is something Conservatives are *not* good at. If you try to argue with a Conservative and convince them your argument is right they'll simply switch arguments. The best way to argue with a Conservative is to ask questions (as though you are simply curious) about their point of view. Continue to ask questions and compare their answers to their previous answers for consistency, and then ask questions about that. Do not try to argue your point of view.
They should make one more Jerry & Bill ad. They continue walking down the street with their luggage, then cut to a new scene where they're sitting out behind 7-11 smoking a joint and eating doritos. Jerry takes a drag on the joint, turns to Bill and says, "Awww man, this is good stuff. Is this the stuff you guys were smoking when you made Vista? Gimme a sign if it's true -- munch a whole bunch of doritos at once!" Bill reaches into the bag, grabs a handfull of doritos and stuffs them all in his mouth.
I like you're idea of voting for the party you actually support. I actually did last time around, but I'm worried about the Conservatives getting back in, so I'm not sure this time.
If you're in BC, vote for STV next year: http://stvforbc.com/
And guns don't kill people, it's those pesky bullets, right? And it's not so much the bullets, but the impact when they travel at high speed. And it's not so much the impact as the bleeding and loss of blood. And it's not so much the blood, as the loss of vital oxygen that the blood was carrying. So it's not that guns kill people, it's that people asphyxiate. Guns are just a scapegoat.
It's nearly impossible to get along with anyone all of the time and I agree that getting a divorce on a whim is a bad idea -- that should only be done over some kind of irreconcilable differences. Marriage is something that should be taken seriously, but that's entirely up to the two people involved and some people seem to take it more seriously than others. Really, marriage is just a symbol of a special relationship. If that relationship fades away, then the marriage becomes an empty symbol. At that point, divorce is a symbolic acknowledgment that the relationship has ended. Forcing a couple to keep an empty symbolic marriage after their relationship has ended wouldn't be sensible, plus that kind of marriage would devalue real marriages.
Anyway, now I'm back to my original point. It's good you understand marriage is a give and take which requires work sometimes. You're free to stay married for as long as you like, and the freedom of others to get a divorce won't take that away from you. In fact, your marriage lasting while others end in divorce only makes your marriage more meaningful.
How much exactly are divorce cases based on "Irreconcilable differences" costing taxpayers? How much is that figure as a percentage of all government expenditures?
Would it be good if people seeking divorce for such reasons were forced to pay the expenses themselves -- thus saving taxpayers the bill?
Okay... did you really start off by arguing that gay marriage is bad because there's more divorces (I don't believe that, but whatever) and now you're saying the reason divorce is bad because it hurts children? I don't have to explain that gay sex doesn't result in children do I? Do you realize that doesn't make sense?
Anyway, on the subject of children in divorce, are you okay with divorce for "Irreconcilable differences" if they don't have any children?
Do you realize that you (and your spouse) are free to stay married and never get a divorce? The freedom of others to get a divorce doesn't take away your freedom to stay married.
And you can only vote once you've answered a relevant skill-testing question that shows you have some knowledge and understanding of the subject being voted on.
A party could easily come to the party that appeals to the left and the right. I'd be willing to bet that most reasonable Americans would classify themselves as fiscal conservative, social liberal... I want lower taxes but I want to see the poor and needy be taken care of too. If my taxes take care of the poor, maybe the poor would be less inclined to rob me. Simple voting creates polarized politics.
Who do you vote for when you absolutely don't want the Conservatives (Republicans) in power, you'd be willing to settle for the Liberals (somewhat like Democrats), but you'd really like to vote for a small party? If you don't vote for the Liberals, then you risk the chance that the Conservatives will get in and so you can't vote for a smaller party. With the Single Transferrable Vote I could have voted for the party I actually want first, put Liberals second and not put Conservatives on my ballot at all. Sure it's more complicated than First Past the Post, but political issues are complicated.
STV would allow more nuanced voting and less polarized politics.
I'm a BC resident too and I'm annoyed that you voted against STV, but at least you thought about it -- unlike the guy who was interviewed on CBC after the election who said, "I didn't know what it was so I voted against it."
Look folks, the reason for the extra $50 is simple. You get both Vista AND XP. So you get a license for Vista and a separate license for XP and you can install each on a separate computer? Or is it an either-or license for the one computer, in which case you're not really getting both, you're just getting the option to 'upgrade' to XP -- for $50.
Absolutely. I totally agree with you. But all people who have succeeded, have risked. Except for the ones who used their parent's money and/or connections. GWB, for example, doesn't seem to have a lot of business sense and it seems almost certain he wouldn't be anywhere near where his is today without his father. Same for Paris Hilton. Not everyone works hard or takes risks to get wealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
You say you're offended by the attacks against Republicans, but then go on to say you're fairly Democratic.
What if there's a world outside pure party politics, where the winning team is the one who comes up with the answer that works? In that world you could pick the answers that work for you from either party, without being too worried about what party you belong to.
I initially misread your sentence about "government acting like my daddy". The thing is, both parties think government is your daddy. The Republicans think dad should tell the children what they can and can't do and freak out when the son turns gay. The Democrats think dad should help pay for the kids to get through college (with 'tax' dollars) and support the son even if he turns gay. Nation-as-family can be a metaphor for government. What kind of Dad would you like to have?
So can you explain why you think McCain's policies would be better for the country than Obama's?
Internal consistency (between moral concepts) is something Conservatives are *not* good at. If you try to argue with a Conservative and convince them your argument is right they'll simply switch arguments. The best way to argue with a Conservative is to ask questions (as though you are simply curious) about their point of view. Continue to ask questions and compare their answers to their previous answers for consistency, and then ask questions about that. Do not try to argue your point of view.
And don't even get me started on their spelling (half-breed muslin? wtf?).
I just checked and that's the correct spelling in the Mavrick Dickshunary. ;)
Want to convert units on your iPhone or Touch? Open Safari, google "$x $unit in $metric". Can I have $0.99 now? ;)
Damn politicians. I never said they're perfect.
Is it okay for her to tell a lie? If we just accept it when a politician lies and shrug it off, will they ever stop?
Only that they're a helluva lot better than the good-looking dude from Illinois. He's bad news.
Why is he "bad news"?
Correction: She did NOT support the bridge to nowhere.
Yes she did.
Slashdot will be replacing the default "Anonymous Coward" name with "Anonymous Republican" in the next few days...
Not to be too pedantic, but that's deceiving, not lying.
It's not deceiving, it's just a narrative which speaks to the controversy and it's not incorrect either, it's just differently real.
--
* this post may contain trace amounts of sarcasm
They should make one more Jerry & Bill ad. They continue walking down the street with their luggage, then cut to a new scene where they're sitting out behind 7-11 smoking a joint and eating doritos. Jerry takes a drag on the joint, turns to Bill and says, "Awww man, this is good stuff. Is this the stuff you guys were smoking when you made Vista? Gimme a sign if it's true -- munch a whole bunch of doritos at once!" Bill reaches into the bag, grabs a handfull of doritos and stuffs them all in his mouth.
Asinine, but then again Apple doesn't follow Windows UI guidelines either.
Does Microsoft follow Windows UI guidelines.. wait, are there are any Windows UI guidelines?
I like you're idea of voting for the party you actually support. I actually did last time around, but I'm worried about the Conservatives getting back in, so I'm not sure this time. If you're in BC, vote for STV next year: http://stvforbc.com/
And guns don't kill people, it's those pesky bullets, right? And it's not so much the bullets, but the impact when they travel at high speed. And it's not so much the impact as the bleeding and loss of blood. And it's not so much the blood, as the loss of vital oxygen that the blood was carrying. So it's not that guns kill people, it's that people asphyxiate. Guns are just a scapegoat.
I tried to translate that chinese text and all I got was "translate server error".
It's nearly impossible to get along with anyone all of the time and I agree that getting a divorce on a whim is a bad idea -- that should only be done over some kind of irreconcilable differences. Marriage is something that should be taken seriously, but that's entirely up to the two people involved and some people seem to take it more seriously than others. Really, marriage is just a symbol of a special relationship. If that relationship fades away, then the marriage becomes an empty symbol. At that point, divorce is a symbolic acknowledgment that the relationship has ended. Forcing a couple to keep an empty symbolic marriage after their relationship has ended wouldn't be sensible, plus that kind of marriage would devalue real marriages.
Anyway, now I'm back to my original point. It's good you understand marriage is a give and take which requires work sometimes. You're free to stay married for as long as you like, and the freedom of others to get a divorce won't take that away from you. In fact, your marriage lasting while others end in divorce only makes your marriage more meaningful.
How much exactly are divorce cases based on "Irreconcilable differences" costing taxpayers? How much is that figure as a percentage of all government expenditures? Would it be good if people seeking divorce for such reasons were forced to pay the expenses themselves -- thus saving taxpayers the bill?
Okay... did you really start off by arguing that gay marriage is bad because there's more divorces (I don't believe that, but whatever) and now you're saying the reason divorce is bad because it hurts children? I don't have to explain that gay sex doesn't result in children do I? Do you realize that doesn't make sense?
Anyway, on the subject of children in divorce, are you okay with divorce for "Irreconcilable differences" if they don't have any children?
Do you realize that you (and your spouse) are free to stay married and never get a divorce? The freedom of others to get a divorce doesn't take away your freedom to stay married.
Are you suggesting we outlaw divorce?
And you can only vote once you've answered a relevant skill-testing question that shows you have some knowledge and understanding of the subject being voted on.
That was a workable and plausible theory in the past. [Illicit] drugs changed all that.
There were no illicit drugs in the past?
Why use sudo when you could just use the ARDAgent hack instead?
osascript -e 'tell app "ARDAgent" to do shell script "gzip ARDAgent.app"';