Exactly. They specifically said that was why they made Android. They didn't want Apple controlling the mobile market. If they get to control it, that is just gravy.
I am pretty frustrated that I can't get it. I live in the same town as Sonic's headquarters. I could walk to their data center. I was a customer when they were just a local dialup. For some reason, they are not spreading to the rest of the city. While Business Class Comcast hasn't been terrible, I would really rather be a Sonic customer.
Don't forget that cities like them because it means that after the city collects taxes for things like roads and parks, the residents of the HOA often end up paying for maintanance of those things directly. It is a way for cities and counties to double dip.
Your point is that men are evil, and if the courts discriminate against them, then the MUST be a good reason for it, because men are evil. YOU don't address the point. The fact that the state of Illinois has in fact siezed the kids, has in fact drugged the kids, has in fact physically tortured one of the children, has in fact incarcerated the kids because they were being abused by the mother, and has in fact never had a bad thing to say about the father, they have splitting custody between the mother and the state, yet your only response is that the father MUST be doing something wrong because men are abusive.
You have made your position clear. You hate men and think they are genetically deficient. That is sad for you, and even sadder for your children, but trying to pretend that I didn't address your points is just self denial. Your final point is to just claim that it just isn't happening. I suppose that is one way to deal with child abuse.
That will probably happen around the time that both parties are not just as bad. Seriously. Both parties are doing massive spying on US citizens. They both have continued to run wars of aggression. Both fund secret prisons. Both sell have sold out to corporate interests. Pointing fingers and declaring the other team worse is silly.
Yet. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the equivalent parts of government are between the US and Europe. Individual countries in Europe are what our individual states are supposed to be. Our federal government is the equivilent of the European Union.
It took 86 years for any of our individual states to try and take their ball and go home. That was the time that the federal government declared that states were no longer willing participants in the Union. The EU has only existed for 20 years. It is still a young union. Give it another 65 years, and lets see if any states decide to take their ball and go home.
That is a bit disingenuous. Depending on which polls you want to believe, anywhere form 30% to 70% of the population doesn't even know what Obamacare is.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/opinion/carroll-obamacare-poll/index.html
Obama only got 3% more votes than Romney. If I win anything by 3%, I consider it a very narrow victory. If the 30% number above is correct, claiming that the will of the people is that they want Obamacare is a little silly. At the other end, if the 70% is correct, claims that the people want Obamacare is completely delusional.
I can say that I was a bit worried during the election because of how close the popular vote was. It was clear that Obama was going to soundly beat Romney in the Electoral College. The last thing I wanted was for the Romney to win the popular vote and Obama to win the Electoral College. That would have raised the bad behavior on both sides of the isle exponentially.
I can agree with Obama vs. McCain, although Obama didn't look particularly bad in that election.
With Romney, I have to disagree. Romney didn't lose because he was a poor candidate. He may have been a poor candidate, but nobody would have known it. Romney fell prey to the every more effective Democrat smear campaign. Your comment of "47 percent of you don't matter" is a perfect example. Romney did not say that "47 percent of you don't matter". He said that 47 percent of the population is going to vote Democratic because they are going to vote party line, and that it wasn't his job to worry about those people IN CONTEXT OF GETTING THEIR VOTE. He was correct on that point. The Democrats believe the same thing. Romney was just explaining the ugly reality to supporters in a private setting.
What followed was the plastering of an untrue accusation against Romney by the media. A massive smear campaign. This kind of behavior has been getting more and more aggressive over the years. It is something that Democrats seem to be good at, and Republicans are not.
Note that I am not saying that Romney would have been good or bad. Just that outright lies about him were being repeated consistently through the campaign.
Hehe...Isn't that the truth. A number of year ago, a woman I worked with came into my office to chat, and was musing about "Why do we need money?". So, I explain that no one wants to give up their stuff without getting paid. She clearly was thinking deeper than that, and asked "Why money?". I think, Okay, and start explaining the concept of barter. She stops me with "No, I think we should all just do our jobs, and should be able to go into stores just get what we need. We shouldn't need money."
I smile, chuckle, and say "Ohhh, your a communist."
Her response is to get mad, declare "No, YOU ARE A COMMUNIST!", and storm out of my office.
You do realize that the Democrats could end it right now, don't you? I'm not going to side on whether they should or not, but to claim that the Democrats are physically incapable of giving in is ridiculous.
Ha! Even if you did, I could cut through your flimsy wood and sheetrock wall with a $30 battery powered reciprocal saw. If you want security, you need 10 inch thick armored steel plating around your entire house.
No. The USDA has already shown you to be completely incorrect on that. The site did not go off line. The power to run the servers is still there, as you can't serve a page saying the site is off line without the server being turned on. The data connection is also clearly still being paid for for the same reason.
I keep hearing that the Republicans tried to pass basically the same thing as Obamacare when Bush was in office. What I don't hear is who opposed it at that time leading to it not being implemented then.
Keep telling yourself that. That way you can feel better about hating your own children. It couldn't be that the system discriminates against men. It must be that men are stupid, right? Seriously. Just be cause you are a man that hates his own sons doesn't mean every other man is as screwed up as you.
A) Clearly not, since that isn't what is happening.
B) Whether it violates the law or not, the men with guns say the kids stay in Illinois, drugged by the state.
C) Irrelevant to whether IL has jurisdiction, dad becomes a fugitive if he takes his kids, and men with guns will do their best to prevent him from taking his children.
D) No it would not make sense to have joint custody with the father. There is no excuse for the state of Illinois to do anything less than return the kids to the father in California where he has full custody.
E) Yes. You hate yourself and your two boys. It is sad that your boys are growing up with a person that tells them they are genetically inferior, but that is their unfortunate fate.
The fact that you would judge a man you don't know, and have never met simply because of his gender is proof positive of just how much of a misandrist you are. Of course all you see is evil men and women as victims. You are broken, and that is all you can see. Reality doesn't come into play for you anymore.
And, yes, the mother is committing the violence, but even if she wasn't, using the courts to take her children from a safe and loving home and dragging them into a house filled with violence is the act of a truly evil person. But, you wouldn't recognize that because your hatred of men is so strong that you believe the mother couldn't be doing the wrong thing. You believe that no matter what happens it is a man's fault. You. Yes you, are personally responsible for children getting abused because you promote their abuse. You advocate for their abuse.
Do you really think that the father just threw up his hands and said, "Shucks, I'm too dumb to get a lawyer!" Of course he has lawyers. It doesn't matter if the mother made material misrepresentation to the court. The court doesn't care. The police have intervened and removed the kids multiple times due to violence in the mothers home. The court has allowed CPS to drug the kids because they want to go home to dad. The courts have decided 'penis bad, vagina good'. Throwing out what should happen in a fair and honest legal system doesn't help when the courts are completely corrupt and openly discriminate against a group.
The children legally went to the other state on a court mandated visitation. During the visitation, the mother had the courts issue an "emergency" order to give her custody. Unfortunately, that means the kids were not legally 'kidnapped'.
A) The children were not taken across state lines in violation of a custody agreement. They crossed state lines for a one week court mandated visitation. Once there, they were denied the right to go home.
B) Those times that the FBI are willing to get involved in are cases where no state recognizes the parents custody. In this case, Illinois issued custody of the children to the mother during her visitation. The FBI is not going to decare one states custody order to supersede another states custody order. Irrelevant of who's order was issued first.
C) The Illinois court acknowledges that the fathers home is safe and loving. There is not even the slightest suggestion by the mother or the courts that the father has done anything wrong.
D) The state of Illinois has claimed joint custody with the mother because the children keep needing to be removed from the home due to the violence in the mothers home.
E) You are a misandrist, and it is people like you that make the abuse of children by women a common occurrence.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently that is what you tell yourself to feel good about your public endorsement of child abuse.
Maybe we can move to removing the crime of "Vandalism" from all of the law books.
Exactly. They specifically said that was why they made Android. They didn't want Apple controlling the mobile market. If they get to control it, that is just gravy.
I am pretty frustrated that I can't get it. I live in the same town as Sonic's headquarters. I could walk to their data center. I was a customer when they were just a local dialup. For some reason, they are not spreading to the rest of the city. While Business Class Comcast hasn't been terrible, I would really rather be a Sonic customer.
Don't forget that cities like them because it means that after the city collects taxes for things like roads and parks, the residents of the HOA often end up paying for maintanance of those things directly. It is a way for cities and counties to double dip.
Your point is that men are evil, and if the courts discriminate against them, then the MUST be a good reason for it, because men are evil. YOU don't address the point. The fact that the state of Illinois has in fact siezed the kids, has in fact drugged the kids, has in fact physically tortured one of the children, has in fact incarcerated the kids because they were being abused by the mother, and has in fact never had a bad thing to say about the father, they have splitting custody between the mother and the state, yet your only response is that the father MUST be doing something wrong because men are abusive.
You have made your position clear. You hate men and think they are genetically deficient. That is sad for you, and even sadder for your children, but trying to pretend that I didn't address your points is just self denial. Your final point is to just claim that it just isn't happening. I suppose that is one way to deal with child abuse.
That will probably happen around the time that both parties are not just as bad. Seriously. Both parties are doing massive spying on US citizens. They both have continued to run wars of aggression. Both fund secret prisons. Both sell have sold out to corporate interests. Pointing fingers and declaring the other team worse is silly.
Yet. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the equivalent parts of government are between the US and Europe. Individual countries in Europe are what our individual states are supposed to be. Our federal government is the equivilent of the European Union.
It took 86 years for any of our individual states to try and take their ball and go home. That was the time that the federal government declared that states were no longer willing participants in the Union. The EU has only existed for 20 years. It is still a young union. Give it another 65 years, and lets see if any states decide to take their ball and go home.
Obamacare isn't even half as good as what I have, and people (Americans) are shouting over it.
Actually, this is why *many people are against it. It isn't the best answer, but if it is good enough, there will be no making it right.
* Polls indicate that as much as 70% of the population doesn't know what Obamacare is beyond the name, so "many" has to be taken in that context.
That is a bit disingenuous. Depending on which polls you want to believe, anywhere form 30% to 70% of the population doesn't even know what Obamacare is.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/opinion/carroll-obamacare-poll/index.html
Obama only got 3% more votes than Romney. If I win anything by 3%, I consider it a very narrow victory. If the 30% number above is correct, claiming that the will of the people is that they want Obamacare is a little silly. At the other end, if the 70% is correct, claims that the people want Obamacare is completely delusional.
I can say that I was a bit worried during the election because of how close the popular vote was. It was clear that Obama was going to soundly beat Romney in the Electoral College. The last thing I wanted was for the Romney to win the popular vote and Obama to win the Electoral College. That would have raised the bad behavior on both sides of the isle exponentially.
I can agree with Obama vs. McCain, although Obama didn't look particularly bad in that election.
With Romney, I have to disagree. Romney didn't lose because he was a poor candidate. He may have been a poor candidate, but nobody would have known it. Romney fell prey to the every more effective Democrat smear campaign. Your comment of "47 percent of you don't matter" is a perfect example. Romney did not say that "47 percent of you don't matter". He said that 47 percent of the population is going to vote Democratic because they are going to vote party line, and that it wasn't his job to worry about those people IN CONTEXT OF GETTING THEIR VOTE. He was correct on that point. The Democrats believe the same thing. Romney was just explaining the ugly reality to supporters in a private setting.
What followed was the plastering of an untrue accusation against Romney by the media. A massive smear campaign. This kind of behavior has been getting more and more aggressive over the years. It is something that Democrats seem to be good at, and Republicans are not.
Note that I am not saying that Romney would have been good or bad. Just that outright lies about him were being repeated consistently through the campaign.
Hehe...Isn't that the truth. A number of year ago, a woman I worked with came into my office to chat, and was musing about "Why do we need money?". So, I explain that no one wants to give up their stuff without getting paid. She clearly was thinking deeper than that, and asked "Why money?". I think, Okay, and start explaining the concept of barter. She stops me with "No, I think we should all just do our jobs, and should be able to go into stores just get what we need. We shouldn't need money."
I smile, chuckle, and say "Ohhh, your a communist."
Her response is to get mad, declare "No, YOU ARE A COMMUNIST!", and storm out of my office.
You do realize that the Democrats could end it right now, don't you? I'm not going to side on whether they should or not, but to claim that the Democrats are physically incapable of giving in is ridiculous.
increasingly relied on racism, religious intolerance, fear mongering, etc. to win elections
Both parties are guilty of that.
Ha! Even if you did, I could cut through your flimsy wood and sheetrock wall with a $30 battery powered reciprocal saw. If you want security, you need 10 inch thick armored steel plating around your entire house.
No. The USDA has already shown you to be completely incorrect on that. The site did not go off line. The power to run the servers is still there, as you can't serve a page saying the site is off line without the server being turned on. The data connection is also clearly still being paid for for the same reason.
I keep hearing that the Republicans tried to pass basically the same thing as Obamacare when Bush was in office. What I don't hear is who opposed it at that time leading to it not being implemented then.
Keep telling yourself that. That way you can feel better about hating your own children. It couldn't be that the system discriminates against men. It must be that men are stupid, right? Seriously. Just be cause you are a man that hates his own sons doesn't mean every other man is as screwed up as you.
Untrue. There are plenty of big butts can be round or flat, as can small ones. Perhaps YOU should get out more. ;)
It seems you don't know what orthogonal means.
A) Clearly not, since that isn't what is happening. B) Whether it violates the law or not, the men with guns say the kids stay in Illinois, drugged by the state. C) Irrelevant to whether IL has jurisdiction, dad becomes a fugitive if he takes his kids, and men with guns will do their best to prevent him from taking his children. D) No it would not make sense to have joint custody with the father. There is no excuse for the state of Illinois to do anything less than return the kids to the father in California where he has full custody. E) Yes. You hate yourself and your two boys. It is sad that your boys are growing up with a person that tells them they are genetically inferior, but that is their unfortunate fate.
The fact that you would judge a man you don't know, and have never met simply because of his gender is proof positive of just how much of a misandrist you are. Of course all you see is evil men and women as victims. You are broken, and that is all you can see. Reality doesn't come into play for you anymore.
And, yes, the mother is committing the violence, but even if she wasn't, using the courts to take her children from a safe and loving home and dragging them into a house filled with violence is the act of a truly evil person. But, you wouldn't recognize that because your hatred of men is so strong that you believe the mother couldn't be doing the wrong thing. You believe that no matter what happens it is a man's fault. You. Yes you, are personally responsible for children getting abused because you promote their abuse. You advocate for their abuse.
Do you really think that the father just threw up his hands and said, "Shucks, I'm too dumb to get a lawyer!" Of course he has lawyers. It doesn't matter if the mother made material misrepresentation to the court. The court doesn't care. The police have intervened and removed the kids multiple times due to violence in the mothers home. The court has allowed CPS to drug the kids because they want to go home to dad. The courts have decided 'penis bad, vagina good'. Throwing out what should happen in a fair and honest legal system doesn't help when the courts are completely corrupt and openly discriminate against a group.
The children legally went to the other state on a court mandated visitation. During the visitation, the mother had the courts issue an "emergency" order to give her custody. Unfortunately, that means the kids were not legally 'kidnapped'.
A) The children were not taken across state lines in violation of a custody agreement. They crossed state lines for a one week court mandated visitation. Once there, they were denied the right to go home. B) Those times that the FBI are willing to get involved in are cases where no state recognizes the parents custody. In this case, Illinois issued custody of the children to the mother during her visitation. The FBI is not going to decare one states custody order to supersede another states custody order. Irrelevant of who's order was issued first. C) The Illinois court acknowledges that the fathers home is safe and loving. There is not even the slightest suggestion by the mother or the courts that the father has done anything wrong. D) The state of Illinois has claimed joint custody with the mother because the children keep needing to be removed from the home due to the violence in the mothers home. E) You are a misandrist, and it is people like you that make the abuse of children by women a common occurrence.
And this conversation is not discussing one of those times.