As you are walking past a computer screen on your left..., you see A guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
You quickly avert your gaze to the right... guess what? No more guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
I won't say, FTFY, but I changed it up a bit. Taking a dump in public is illegal. Mastubating in public or in front of kids is illegal. How is viewing porn free speech and masturbating to that porn NOT free speech. At least by masturbating, you are expressing yourself. You are saying, "I'm really digging this porn!"
Here is an even simpler solution. Rather than making every single patron in the library avert their gaze, how about asking the one asshole to leave. You piss off one person rather than everyone else. You have rights, but your rights do not come at the expense of everyone else's.
A well-stocked library contains plenty of pornographic books, so it's kind of a slippery slope for the library. And unless you yell "gather round children" while using the computer you aren't really "showing" porn to minors. I agree that the library could encourage people to be discreet, but really kids should be in segregated areas anyway.
Wait a minute here. Are you saying the kids should be in segregated areas but the guy looking at porn should be allowed to view it wherever he wants?
If someone's editorial is right next to the one you're reading, and you don't like it, it's disruptive.
Deal with it.
Sorry, but with your ID, you are not an unbiased topic.
Sorry, but you can deal with looking at porn elsewhere. Free speech does not mean I have to "deal with it". I can't yell N-word in a library. Hell, I can't even TALK in a library. If you are mad because you can't see lemonparty.org, tough shit.
That's a nice position. While we're at it let's just set up a bunch of new zones for all of our rights. Zone A is for religion. Zone B is for speech. Zone C is for the press. Zone D is for petition.
Slippery slope fallacy.
That's like saying, "You can't disrupt a congressional hearing. If you try to, they remove you by force. Why not just make everyone be silent everywhere and as soon as someone speaks, government jack-boots can shoot them."
The guy was looking at porn in the same place the story lady reads to kids. If you think that is OK, you seriously have problems. I'm all for free speech, but believe it or not, not everything is classified as speech. Pissing on a the water proof microfiche is not speech, even thought it might convey my views.
The sad part of this is, if I were to talk in a library, I would be shushed by a librarian. If I want to view porn, it's OK? So LOOKING at porn is SPEECH, but SPEAKING is not SPEECH. Did I get that right?
Time, place, and manner. Long established restrictions on speech in public forums.
There are very, very specific restrictions, the most famous being the presentation of a "clear and present danger". Is there a specific precedent you can cite which would apply soundly to consuming pornography in public but wouldn't be comically out of sync with the letter or spirit of 1A?
Yes! It is illegal to show children naked pictures. If he is in the public library viewing porn (nake pictures), then he is certainly exposing children to naked pictures. I see no reason why this guy shouldn't be arrested under sexual predator laws and put "on the list".
Sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again. This guy was free to say that he likes porn. He is NOT free to show it to everyone.
Also, consumption is NOT speech. He was not stating a viewpoint or petitioning grievences to his government. He was looking at porn.
By that logic, eggs and sperm have the same rights you do.
My GOD! What is wrong with people today? The first dumbass stated that her child's DNA is the same as hers, now this moron is saying that eggs and sperm have the same DNA as a person.
Let me help you out here. There are 23 genes in an egg and 23 genes in a sperm cell. There are 46 genes in a human. Now, since it is obvious that math is not your best subject, let me give you a hint: 23 != 46
An intelligent argument can be made for the idea that abortion is wrong. Yours is not such an argument.
Great! The math major is judging the intelligence of my argument.
there are too many points where you have to make a judgment call about why things are moral.
Judgment call? Um, do a DNA test, listen for a heartbeat, scan for brain activity. Where's the judgment call?
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
More importantly, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
Excellent point. I'll err on the side of caution and assume that if it has human DNA, independent brain waves and a heart beat, then it is a living human being.
Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.
No, they are NOT! Go give a "fetus" a DNA test. You will find that it is NOT YOUR DNA. Roughly half of it came from you, but it is different than yours. Your DNA was yours when you were a fetus. It has not changed. Is your DNA the same as your mother's? Your child is your body just as you are currently your mothers.
And yes, the mother donates the egg. But the father donates the sperm. Just as much DNA is from the father than the mother. So, using your logic, shouldn't the father have just as much of a right to FORCE you to have an abortion? Since you are claiming ownership gives you the right to kill the child, the father is just as much an owner as you are, and, based on YOUR logic, should have the same rights. Or do you think that one sex should have more rights than others?
4) If they give workers "the right to accept a job without joining a union" they are labelled as being "anti-union" because that policy weakens unions, by encouraging workers to free-load. They get to enjoying the benefits of the union's negotiations without paying for them.
Really? Because I work in a "right to work" state and we don't have that problem. While working at Kroger many years ago, union members received one set of benefits and pay scale. Non-union members received another.
There is no union at my current job. I enjoy full health benefits for me and my family, decent salary, fair treatment, plenty of vacation and sick days, maternity, 401k and a slew of other benefits I'll probably never use. Don't assume that without unions, the worker gets screwed. The worker only gets screwed when there are 20 other workers willing to take his place for less money. If that's the case, you need to find a new line of work.
But that doesn't matter. Are you saying that I should be forced to give my money to a union, that will turn around and give to the Democratic party? Would you feel the same way if getting a job meant you had to support the Republican party? I would be much more receptive the idea if unions were banned from politics, but that's not the case.
For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America.
Have you read her books? Until then, you don't really know what you are talking about.
But to get back on topic, how much air time does Ann Coulter get? Quite a bit, I'm sure. She writes a book every two to three years and gets a few minutes on a few TV talk shows to promote her new book or being the conservative "talking head" on a panel full of liberals. This lasts for a couple of weeks until the next book comes out. How much time does Rachel Maddow get? How about Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg or Ed Schultz or Bill Maher or Christiane Amanpour or the entire cast of Glee? For every minute Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors on television, any one of these liberals are calling conservatives racists for more than 20 hours. Do your own math.
I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias).
Granted, on both our parts.
1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women.
Wrong. You say that, but deep down, you know it's a lie. I'm conservative. I don't want to "subjugate" women. For that matter, I have no problem with contraception. I agree with the President that they should be covered by insurance, at no additional cost to the insurer and no copay. Where I don't agree is that insurances companies must be forced to provide birth control. At the very least, it should have an "opt-out" clauses, even if opting out of insurance provided contraception will not reduce premiums (and it should not).
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not? What gives anyone the qualification to determine that? History is full of bad things happening when one group of people determined that another group of people was no longer human, freeing their conscience to justify whatever evil they determined to be necessary.
Also, you will note that those against embryonic stem cell research are against it because it takes a human life. How is the destruction of a discarded human embryo for scientific research "subjugating" women?
And finally, and if you read nothing else, read this. WHY WOULD 51% OF WOMEN BE AGAINST ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL?
Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.
Are you saying that 51% of women support the "subjugation" of women?
3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich.
So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich? Seems to me that everyone would get the same percentage of tax cuts. How about if a president, say, gave everyone who pays taxes $600? Would that be more fair? Actually, GWB, a Republican, did just that, but he was favoring the rich, right?
Tell you what. I'm sure you make more than me. Why don't you figure out what you saved from any tax cuts you say favor the rich, and simply send it to me. See, because compared to me, you are RICH! So why shouldn't I have the RIGHT to take what is yours? If you think for some reason I make more than you, you are still still rich compared to someone. Go give them whatever you think you have saved from tax cuts over the last 20 years, because YOU, being rich, has benefited more from Republican tax cuts that whoever is poorer than you.
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
So THANKS.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
You don't want government in your bedroom. Can you imagine government at your dinner table, prodding your to get off your couch or monitoring your alcohol consumption and workout schedule? How long until someone asks a smoker, "Why should I pay the medical bills for your poor life decisions?" At what point does good health become the law?
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
Everyone else, fyi:
The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States
Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
No one really cares what you do in your bedroom or with who. It's what you do on the park bench that offends us. It's what you want to teach our children. It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens. It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping. It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids. It's explaining to first graders that it is OK to explore your sexuality.
It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
I assume you are talking about "right to work" laws. Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union, or paying union dues whether they join the union or not. It also prevents companies from taking retaliatory actions against workers who want to start or join a union. What's the problem? Do you really believe that I should I be forced to pay union dues that will contribute political money to an organization I disagree with just so I can have a job? That's a clear violation of my rights in favor of unions, which is exactly of what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.
Most of your comment is spot on, but this one little point jabbed me:
Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich.
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said. It's not just you, but it seems to me that no matter what Republicans or conservatives do, they are going to have the standard criticisms heaved upon them. If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
No matter what conservatives do, those opposed the conservatives, not even necessarily their programs, will find a hyperbolic stereotype to label them with. Even when conservatives do something that is completely counter to the stereotype, the old stereotypes as still applied. Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.
Re:How does it compare to Chrome?
on
Firefox 10 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This isn't a problem on your average desktop, but it blows ass on older machines, laptops, and netbooks that don't have the resources or the newer technologies that help offset the fact that Firefox is fat
Firefox does have issues with being leaky. I came into the office the other day and it was using over 700MB RAM with about six tabs open. A restart fixed the issue, but Chrome doesn't have that problem. Then again, Chrome doesn't have side tabs (Tree Style Tabs), which is a must for having many tabs open. Tree Style Tabs is the only thing keeping me on FireFox.
Currently, Firefox is using 417 MB for 9 tabs. The second largest memory hog on my system is Notepad++ at 96 MB.
I had forgotten he was Mormon. Isn't that considerably weirder than your average flavor of Christianity? 99% of what I know of Mormonism is from South Park.
Tough call. Mormons have the reputation of having multiple wives. The sad part is that Newt has had more wives than Mit.
Well, nothing is better than whatever the Repub's do.
Your comment is the typical Democrat response. Here we have a story about a Democrat who is refusing to investigate another Democrat. Your response? You bad mouth Republicans. Of course, like Obama and all other Democrats, you are incapable of criticizing them, no matter how wrong they are.
If Dodd were a Republican, the investigation would have been complete long ago, no petitions needed, and you would get first post saying that this is proof positive that Republicans are corrupt.
Cato of course is a right wing stink tank not a journalism site and NLPC,well, you can practically feel the oil oozing from that site.
And Media Matters and Oreilly Sucks are middle of the road and completely objective. Please allow me to quote myself again because it obviously didn't sink in the first time:
It must be tough to be that delusional. It's kinda like blaming a single news network of being bias, while continuing to deny the true bias from all the other networks, even when it's been proven beyond denial.
I find it sad to read this, knowing many actually think this way:'(
Don't be sad. Almost no one thinks that way. I would guess that as many people believe that the government is controlling our minds through HARP or contrails than believe like the GP stated. For that matter, anyone that doesn't teach the basics are not allowed to home school as home school kids must still be able to pass standardized tests based on subject matter that does not include the King James Bible.
But, the guy said it and it's justifies your complete contempt for Christians, so it must be true, right?
When Fox News releases a report in September of an election year based on obviously fake documents supposedly written by a man who's been dead for years with the sole intention of ruining a president's re-election chances, you let me know. Oh wait. You will never know because you Fox blocked. I guess that means you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
It's gotten so bad that news networks are using the phrase "Fake, but accurate" to describe a story. It's not FoxNews, by the way. In other words, they believed something to be true, but were unable to prove it. So they faked the evidence and presented it as fact. When caught, they said, "So? The story is still true, so we ran with it." Never once did they actually consider that the story might be false. Even today, many still believe the story's authenticity, years after it's been proven to be a lie.
It must be tough to be that delusional. It's kinda like blaming a single news network of being bias, while continuing to deny the true bias from all the other networks, even when it's been proven beyond denial.
And actually, all politicians in general. But these assholes spewing letting the church govern the USA and lowering the tax rates for the rich to 0% (allowing them to funnel even more money to the Caymans) boggles my mind. No jobs created there, my friends!
Strawman. No current politician has suggested handing over control of the government to any church and no one is suggesting that the "rich" pay 0% in taxes.
Uhhh...you DO realize that most likely for the price you paid for that RDRAM you could have just shitcanned the board and put a MUCH nicer board in its place?
Not in a Compaq system. Compaq systems were very proprietary and probably would not accept any other boards. He would also have to buy a new case, power supply, RAM, motherboard, and video card (probably on board in the Compaq).
I think he would have broken even price wise, but he would have spent an awful lot of time to simply salvage the processor, HDD keyboard, mouse and monitor.
You didn't *have* to buy it. It was the most convenient path, or you didn't really care about that which you care about now, or you didn't feel like working with a larger swap space, or you didn't feel like shelling out for another computer, or...
Actually, he HAD to buy it. When the P4 first came out, it only supported Rambus RAM. DDR was not supported in the early days of the P4.
So, if was going to upgrade his RAM on an early P4 system, yes, he HAD to buy from Rambus.
I don't know. Maybe you should follow the link the parent provided for you. If you don't want to do that, need I remind you about all the standards meetings that Rambus attended, and mysteriously patented the future standards shortly afterwards. At least, that's the rumor I remember. And I specifically remember Rambus suing everyone trying to get money for DDR patents, even though DDR had been around for ages. Being in every P4 machine wasn't enough. They needed to make money from every computer, whether they made the RAM or not.
Slashdot Mirror
As you are walking past a computer screen on your left..., you see
A guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
You quickly avert your gaze to the right... guess what? No more guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
I won't say, FTFY, but I changed it up a bit. Taking a dump in public is illegal. Mastubating in public or in front of kids is illegal. How is viewing porn free speech and masturbating to that porn NOT free speech. At least by masturbating, you are expressing yourself. You are saying, "I'm really digging this porn!"
Here is an even simpler solution. Rather than making every single patron in the library avert their gaze, how about asking the one asshole to leave. You piss off one person rather than everyone else. You have rights, but your rights do not come at the expense of everyone else's.
A well-stocked library contains plenty of pornographic books, so it's kind of a slippery slope for the library. And unless you yell "gather round children" while using the computer you aren't really "showing" porn to minors. I agree that the library could encourage people to be discreet, but really kids should be in segregated areas anyway.
Wait a minute here. Are you saying the kids should be in segregated areas but the guy looking at porn should be allowed to view it wherever he wants?
Damn! Your priorities are fucked up.
If someone's editorial is right next to the one you're reading, and you don't like it, it's disruptive.
Deal with it.
Sorry, but with your ID, you are not an unbiased topic.
Sorry, but you can deal with looking at porn elsewhere. Free speech does not mean I have to "deal with it". I can't yell N-word in a library. Hell, I can't even TALK in a library. If you are mad because you can't see lemonparty.org, tough shit.
That's a nice position. While we're at it let's just set up a bunch of new zones for all of our rights. Zone A is for religion. Zone B is for speech. Zone C is for the press. Zone D is for petition.
Slippery slope fallacy.
That's like saying, "You can't disrupt a congressional hearing. If you try to, they remove you by force. Why not just make everyone be silent everywhere and as soon as someone speaks, government jack-boots can shoot them."
The guy was looking at porn in the same place the story lady reads to kids. If you think that is OK, you seriously have problems. I'm all for free speech, but believe it or not, not everything is classified as speech. Pissing on a the water proof microfiche is not speech, even thought it might convey my views.
The sad part of this is, if I were to talk in a library, I would be shushed by a librarian. If I want to view porn, it's OK? So LOOKING at porn is SPEECH, but SPEAKING is not SPEECH. Did I get that right?
Time, place, and manner. Long established restrictions on speech in public forums.
There are very, very specific restrictions, the most famous being the presentation of a "clear and present danger". Is there a specific precedent you can cite which would apply soundly to consuming pornography in public but wouldn't be comically out of sync with the letter or spirit of 1A?
Yes! It is illegal to show children naked pictures. If he is in the public library viewing porn (nake pictures), then he is certainly exposing children to naked pictures. I see no reason why this guy shouldn't be arrested under sexual predator laws and put "on the list".
Sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again. This guy was free to say that he likes porn. He is NOT free to show it to everyone.
Also, consumption is NOT speech. He was not stating a viewpoint or petitioning grievences to his government. He was looking at porn.
VIEWING PORN IS NOT SPEECH!
By that logic, eggs and sperm have the same rights you do.
My GOD! What is wrong with people today? The first dumbass stated that her child's DNA is the same as hers, now this moron is saying that eggs and sperm have the same DNA as a person.
Let me help you out here. There are 23 genes in an egg and 23 genes in a sperm cell. There are 46 genes in a human. Now, since it is obvious that math is not your best subject, let me give you a hint:
23 != 46
An intelligent argument can be made for the idea that abortion is wrong. Yours is not such an argument.
Great! The math major is judging the intelligence of my argument.
there are too many points where you have to make a judgment call about why things are moral.
Judgment call? Um, do a DNA test, listen for a heartbeat, scan for brain activity. Where's the judgment call?
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
More importantly, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
Excellent point. I'll err on the side of caution and assume that if it has human DNA, independent brain waves and a heart beat, then it is a living human being.
Or, we could wait a few years and ask it.
Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.
No, they are NOT! Go give a "fetus" a DNA test. You will find that it is NOT YOUR DNA. Roughly half of it came from you, but it is different than yours. Your DNA was yours when you were a fetus. It has not changed. Is your DNA the same as your mother's? Your child is your body just as you are currently your mothers.
And yes, the mother donates the egg. But the father donates the sperm. Just as much DNA is from the father than the mother. So, using your logic, shouldn't the father have just as much of a right to FORCE you to have an abortion? Since you are claiming ownership gives you the right to kill the child, the father is just as much an owner as you are, and, based on YOUR logic, should have the same rights. Or do you think that one sex should have more rights than others?
Missed one:
4) If they give workers "the right to accept a job without joining a union" they are labelled as being "anti-union" because that policy weakens unions, by encouraging workers to free-load. They get to enjoying the benefits of the union's negotiations without paying for them.
Really? Because I work in a "right to work" state and we don't have that problem. While working at Kroger many years ago, union members received one set of benefits and pay scale. Non-union members received another.
There is no union at my current job. I enjoy full health benefits for me and my family, decent salary, fair treatment, plenty of vacation and sick days, maternity, 401k and a slew of other benefits I'll probably never use. Don't assume that without unions, the worker gets screwed. The worker only gets screwed when there are 20 other workers willing to take his place for less money. If that's the case, you need to find a new line of work.
But that doesn't matter. Are you saying that I should be forced to give my money to a union, that will turn around and give to the Democratic party? Would you feel the same way if getting a job meant you had to support the Republican party? I would be much more receptive the idea if unions were banned from politics, but that's not the case.
For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America.
Have you read her books? Until then, you don't really know what you are talking about.
But to get back on topic, how much air time does Ann Coulter get? Quite a bit, I'm sure. She writes a book every two to three years and gets a few minutes on a few TV talk shows to promote her new book or being the conservative "talking head" on a panel full of liberals. This lasts for a couple of weeks until the next book comes out. How much time does Rachel Maddow get? How about Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg or Ed Schultz or Bill Maher or Christiane Amanpour or the entire cast of Glee? For every minute Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors on television, any one of these liberals are calling conservatives racists for more than 20 hours. Do your own math.
I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias).
Granted, on both our parts.
1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women.
Wrong. You say that, but deep down, you know it's a lie. I'm conservative. I don't want to "subjugate" women. For that matter, I have no problem with contraception. I agree with the President that they should be covered by insurance, at no additional cost to the insurer and no copay. Where I don't agree is that insurances companies must be forced to provide birth control. At the very least, it should have an "opt-out" clauses, even if opting out of insurance provided contraception will not reduce premiums (and it should not).
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not? What gives anyone the qualification to determine that? History is full of bad things happening when one group of people determined that another group of people was no longer human, freeing their conscience to justify whatever evil they determined to be necessary.
Also, you will note that those against embryonic stem cell research are against it because it takes a human life. How is the destruction of a discarded human embryo for scientific research "subjugating" women?
And finally, and if you read nothing else, read this. WHY WOULD 51% OF WOMEN BE AGAINST ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL?
Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.
Are you saying that 51% of women support the "subjugation" of women?
3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich.
So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich? Seems to me that everyone would get the same percentage of tax cuts. How about if a president, say, gave everyone who pays taxes $600? Would that be more fair? Actually, GWB, a Republican, did just that, but he was favoring the rich, right?
Tell you what. I'm sure you make more than me. Why don't you figure out what you saved from any tax cuts you say favor the rich, and simply send it to me. See, because compared to me, you are RICH! So why shouldn't I have the RIGHT to take what is yours? If you think for some reason I make more than you, you are still still rich compared to someone. Go give them whatever you think you have saved from tax cuts over the last 20 years, because YOU, being rich, has benefited more from Republican tax cuts that whoever is poorer than you.
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
So THANKS.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
You don't want government in your bedroom. Can you imagine government at your dinner table, prodding your to get off your couch or monitoring your alcohol consumption and workout schedule? How long until someone asks a smoker, "Why should I pay the medical bills for your poor life decisions?" At what point does good health become the law?
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
Everyone else, fyi:
The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States
Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.
So? Ad hominem much?
Please allow me to reply as a conservative.
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
No one really cares what you do in your bedroom or with who. It's what you do on the park bench that offends us. It's what you want to teach our children. It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens. It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping. It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids. It's explaining to first graders that it is OK to explore your sexuality.
It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
I assume you are talking about "right to work" laws. Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union, or paying union dues whether they join the union or not. It also prevents companies from taking retaliatory actions against workers who want to start or join a union.
What's the problem? Do you really believe that I should I be forced to pay union dues that will contribute political money to an organization I disagree with just so I can have a job? That's a clear violation of my rights in favor of unions, which is exactly of what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.
Most of your comment is spot on, but this one little point jabbed me:
Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich.
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said. It's not just you, but it seems to me that no matter what Republicans or conservatives do, they are going to have the standard criticisms heaved upon them. If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
No matter what conservatives do, those opposed the conservatives, not even necessarily their programs, will find a hyperbolic stereotype to label them with. Even when conservatives do something that is completely counter to the stereotype, the old stereotypes as still applied. Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.
firefox RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released, only tab open - 243mb across 2 processes(firefox.exe, plugin-container.exe)
chrome RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released, only tab open - 99mb across 4 processes(chrome.exe x4)
This isn't a problem on your average desktop, but it blows ass on older machines, laptops, and netbooks that don't have the resources or the newer technologies that help offset the fact that Firefox is fat
Firefox does have issues with being leaky. I came into the office the other day and it was using over 700MB RAM with about six tabs open. A restart fixed the issue, but Chrome doesn't have that problem. Then again, Chrome doesn't have side tabs (Tree Style Tabs), which is a must for having many tabs open. Tree Style Tabs is the only thing keeping me on FireFox.
Currently, Firefox is using 417 MB for 9 tabs. The second largest memory hog on my system is Notepad++ at 96 MB.
if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.
It' would have to be FirerfoXXX for me to get on board. The XX stuff is a bit lame for my perverted tastes.
I had forgotten he was Mormon. Isn't that considerably weirder than your average flavor of Christianity? 99% of what I know of Mormonism is from South Park.
Tough call. Mormons have the reputation of having multiple wives. The sad part is that Newt has had more wives than Mit.
Well, nothing is better than whatever the Repub's do.
Your comment is the typical Democrat response. Here we have a story about a Democrat who is refusing to investigate another Democrat. Your response? You bad mouth Republicans. Of course, like Obama and all other Democrats, you are incapable of criticizing them, no matter how wrong they are.
If Dodd were a Republican, the investigation would have been complete long ago, no petitions needed, and you would get first post saying that this is proof positive that Republicans are corrupt.
Cato of course is a right wing stink tank not a journalism site and NLPC,well, you can practically feel the oil oozing from that site.
And Media Matters and Oreilly Sucks are middle of the road and completely objective. Please allow me to quote myself again because it obviously didn't sink in the first time:
It must be tough to be that delusional. It's kinda like blaming a single news network of being bias, while continuing to deny the true bias from all the other networks, even when it's been proven beyond denial.
Then may I present to you http://newsbusters.org/ http://www.aim.org/, http://www.cato.org/, and http://nlpc.org/.
Never heard of most of those, but I'm sure there is no immediate bias at http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ and even liberals deny being tied to http://mediamatters.org/ .
I find it sad to read this, knowing many actually think this way :'(
Don't be sad. Almost no one thinks that way. I would guess that as many people believe that the government is controlling our minds through HARP or contrails than believe like the GP stated. For that matter, anyone that doesn't teach the basics are not allowed to home school as home school kids must still be able to pass standardized tests based on subject matter that does not include the King James Bible.
But, the guy said it and it's justifies your complete contempt for Christians, so it must be true, right?
When Fox News releases a report in September of an election year based on obviously fake documents supposedly written by a man who's been dead for years with the sole intention of ruining a president's re-election chances, you let me know. Oh wait. You will never know because you Fox blocked. I guess that means you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
It's gotten so bad that news networks are using the phrase "Fake, but accurate" to describe a story. It's not FoxNews, by the way. In other words, they believed something to be true, but were unable to prove it. So they faked the evidence and presented it as fact. When caught, they said, "So? The story is still true, so we ran with it." Never once did they actually consider that the story might be false. Even today, many still believe the story's authenticity, years after it's been proven to be a lie.
It must be tough to be that delusional. It's kinda like blaming a single news network of being bias, while continuing to deny the true bias from all the other networks, even when it's been proven beyond denial.
And actually, all politicians in general. But these assholes spewing letting the church govern the USA and lowering the tax rates for the rich to 0% (allowing them to funnel even more money to the Caymans) boggles my mind. No jobs created there, my friends!
Strawman. No current politician has suggested handing over control of the government to any church and no one is suggesting that the "rich" pay 0% in taxes.
Uhhh...you DO realize that most likely for the price you paid for that RDRAM you could have just shitcanned the board and put a MUCH nicer board in its place?
Not in a Compaq system. Compaq systems were very proprietary and probably would not accept any other boards. He would also have to buy a new case, power supply, RAM, motherboard, and video card (probably on board in the Compaq).
I think he would have broken even price wise, but he would have spent an awful lot of time to simply salvage the processor, HDD keyboard, mouse and monitor.
You didn't *have* to buy it.
It was the most convenient path, or you didn't really care about that which you care about now, or you didn't feel like working with a larger swap space, or you didn't feel like shelling out for another computer, or...
Actually, he HAD to buy it. When the P4 first came out, it only supported Rambus RAM. DDR was not supported in the early days of the P4.
So, if was going to upgrade his RAM on an early P4 system, yes, he HAD to buy from Rambus.
"Stolen"? How so?
I don't know. Maybe you should follow the link the parent provided for you. If you don't want to do that, need I remind you about all the standards meetings that Rambus attended, and mysteriously patented the future standards shortly afterwards. At least, that's the rumor I remember. And I specifically remember Rambus suing everyone trying to get money for DDR patents, even though DDR had been around for ages. Being in every P4 machine wasn't enough. They needed to make money from every computer, whether they made the RAM or not.