Comcast's HD DVR is about the worst piece of shit I've ever had the dubious privellege of using. It's what I use today (HD DVR - nuff said) but it's just a shoddy piece of shit.
Part of it is plain ol' network issues - blocking, freezing and the like whenever we get a new neighbor who installs their cable.
But the actual DVR unit will lag occasionally, or get stuck in rewind/ff, and just skip to the end on occasion.
I would never buy such a unit and think it's pretty much awful. I probably won't spring for HD or their DVR at the next place I live simply because of these reasons.
Christ said multiple times he comes not to destroy the Word but to uphold it. I mean, it's wacky contradictions galore throughout the Bible but most Christian scholars don't think Christ did away with the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17 is the best example.
Felony and misdemeanor are simply two different levels of a crime.
Whether or not you're committing a "federal" vs "state" crime is independent of whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony. (Federal often involves more than one state, as an example. e.g. Cigarette smuggling)
There's a problem statement and a theory on how to fix it. From TFW:
Teach For America's mission is to enlist our nation's most promising future leaders in the movement to eliminate educational inequality.
We accomplish this by building a diverse, highly selective national corps of outstanding recent college graduates--of all academic majors and career interests--who commit two years to teach in urban and rural public schools in our nation's lowest-income communities and become lifelong leaders for expanding educational opportunity.
I'm pretty sure that's what they do. But then again, they're probably looking for people who can comprehend a mission statement, to make teaching english more effectual.
(but fewer riches for the shareholders of lockheed-martin and halliburton et al)
Typically, et al is referring specifically to people and is misused quite often. In this case, is it misused because the corporations named are not people, or does the "personhood" granted by their corporation make this gramatically correct?
Would it be a usage error only in countries where corporate "personhood" is considered batshit crazy?
Questions like these are why I never get favorable performance reviews. To veer back on topic, I'd like to say "me too" to your thoughts on enforcement through aggression. It simply doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. Guerrilla warfare is far too effective to rule with an iron fist. Even if you cover it with a velvet glove and then tell women to "smell the glove". Although I bet it would make an awesome rock album. The art would be fantastic.
To one of your points:
Either way it goes on any given issue, it's adding a gradient in the direction of greater state power, higher taxes, less freedom etc.
I'm not particularly sure I follow you, here. The basic premise is that there's Liberalism (freedom from restriction) and limits set upon that to protect the rights of others. So naturally, the discussion of right and left will (or at least should) skew towards determining what these limits are, and how to enforce them.
To what level is the free market acceptable, and when does government need to intervene?
What can a person "get away with" in terms of the religion they worship? (human sacrifice? bigotry? bigamy?)
When, if ever, should a government exert force upon another country?
I think all positions taken, Right, Left, Center, should be informed by the ideal of liberalism. Freedom from restriction should be the first consideration; the problems with society and how to impose the limits to correct its ills determine your stance.
One point you make I agree wholeheartedly with is the idea of referring to "left" and "right". Even when used correctly, the center is a better place to be. I refer to that as centrist, however, not necessarily "Liberal".
For example, when the Economist uses the terms right and left (often in reference to Labor and the Tories) are they characterizing it correctly? Or is their definition askew from your own?
WRT to my Dem/Rep crack, it was just a joke (shamefully, stolen). I don't really think the Republicans think poor people should die. (well, Tancredo believes poor Hispanics should die, but that's because he's a racist dick, not because he's a Republican)
Your points are interesting. Can one posit that the meanings of Right and Left have shifted through usage? Not to defend my original statements; I'm more interested in the basic political philosophy than proving my point from above. To restate - has usage/time changed the meaning of Right and Left, and if so, what is the new meaning? This also goes back to media like the Economist - do you believe they're utilizing your definition or a different one?
And as a side note, doesn't Liberalism ultimately fail if it fails to define limits on individual freedoms? Aren't those limits the core of what Right/Left should be about? (assuming we're running with a dualistic sort of idea. . . I realize that's limiting in and of itself but I was raised Christian so dualistic thought habits fall into place naturally)
I was using liberal in the terms of US politics, not in terms of Liberalism. So yes, you were correct.
I do disagree with your characterization of both Right and Left. . . you characterized both as their enemies would. Which has a chilling effect on the (original) point of party affiliation, which was finding an appropriate answer to the problems we face as a nation (assuming you're a US Citizen).
The appropriate characterization would be the Democrats think that by helping the poor and less fortunate out, the society will benefit as a whole (a rising tide lifts all boats) while the Republicans think it would be better if the poor people just died.
Simply because the [current] Republicans are violently partisan and politicize everything, does not mean that their opponents are as bad (or even of the same stripe).
And even if they were, Democratic policies tend to reward the lower and middle class, thereby satisfying (from a utilitarian standpoint) a higher majority than the Republicans.
Hell, retarded values-voters who have been happily voting Repub, then bending over as they and their families' futures are sold down the river by Republicans who continually ass-fuck their "base" for the benefit of the top 1%, even those Republicans will ultimately be helped by democratic policies. Even if it means fags get to marry, which they'll hate and confuse with "policies that hurt them" when in reality it has jack and shit to do with their red necked ignorant asses.
He did attempt to build a bipartisan cabinet, it is a solid historical fact.
That was my point in the first place . . . that it wasn't "Yes Men" but real experts with genuine opinions. Then Mr Dittohead comes out with a whole "he was THE Yes President! He governed by focus group!" diatribe.
What's the point in arguing with that? It's pointless. I run through unpopular ideas he sponsored to prove a point for. . . what exactly? His mind's made up.
If you're legitimately interested in me disproving the baseless "Yes Man!" assertion, here's two of his more controversial (and certainly not focus group firendly) initiatives:
Gays in the military (wasn't this one popular!)
Free trade agreements, specifically signing NAFTA into law. Which is more of a right leaning thing, free trade and whatnot. (As a self described liberal, I lean right on free trade and believe it's important, similarly to Clinton. I'm also pro-fiscal discipline, another of Clinton's wonderful traits. I am also pro-random blow jobs)
Campaign staffers (particularly the high level ones) end up in policy-type positions.
If they're pricks as campaign staffers, they'll be prick when it actually matters
Obama needs to spend some time with his campaign, it appears, as if he's bringing these guys to the dance it's time to spend my campaign contributions on a different candidate.
Clinton has anything but Yes men. His cabinet was bipartisan and he regularly solicited advice from experts regardless of political leanings or whether or not they agreed with him.
It was actually very refreshing, IMO.
Bush Jr, on the other hand, certainly has the problems of living in a bubble.
Slashdot Mirror
body builders and the like have skewed BMIs, for example.
Part of it is plain ol' network issues - blocking, freezing and the like whenever we get a new neighbor who installs their cable.
But the actual DVR unit will lag occasionally, or get stuck in rewind/ff, and just skip to the end on occasion. I would never buy such a unit and think it's pretty much awful. I probably won't spring for HD or their DVR at the next place I live simply because of these reasons.
Christ said multiple times he comes not to destroy the Word but to uphold it. I mean, it's wacky contradictions galore throughout the Bible but most Christian scholars don't think Christ did away with the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17 is the best example.
like what they did for 28 days later?
it was funnier to see the people correct me. fucking nerds.
Do a google before you post next time so you don't look so ignorant.
Whether or not you're committing a "federal" vs "state" crime is independent of whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony. (Federal often involves more than one state, as an example. e.g. Cigarette smuggling)
It terrifies me that you used minutes as your increment of time. What the hell are you doing in there?
T: Brian, what's the plural for box?
B: Boxen. I bought two boxen of donuts.
An octopus in a bear trap? No, they don't suck.
7 mutant leeches with one arm each, like Trogdor? That must be it. But it seems awfully complicated and not accurate.
How about your mom, your dad, you, and your one armed sister?
Teach For America's mission is to enlist our nation's most promising future leaders in the movement to eliminate educational inequality. We accomplish this by building a diverse, highly selective national corps of outstanding recent college graduates--of all academic majors and career interests--who commit two years to teach in urban and rural public schools in our nation's lowest-income communities and become lifelong leaders for expanding educational opportunity.
I'm pretty sure that's what they do. But then again, they're probably looking for people who can comprehend a mission statement, to make teaching english more effectual.
We could test to see if Anne Coulter is lacking said gene, and prove once and for all she's an inhuman demonspawn?
Stupid Flanders.
Typically, et al is referring specifically to people and is misused quite often. In this case, is it misused because the corporations named are not people, or does the "personhood" granted by their corporation make this gramatically correct?
Would it be a usage error only in countries where corporate "personhood" is considered batshit crazy?
Questions like these are why I never get favorable performance reviews. To veer back on topic, I'd like to say "me too" to your thoughts on enforcement through aggression. It simply doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. Guerrilla warfare is far too effective to rule with an iron fist. Even if you cover it with a velvet glove and then tell women to "smell the glove". Although I bet it would make an awesome rock album. The art would be fantastic.
I'm not particularly sure I follow you, here. The basic premise is that there's Liberalism (freedom from restriction) and limits set upon that to protect the rights of others. So naturally, the discussion of right and left will (or at least should) skew towards determining what these limits are, and how to enforce them.
-
To what level is the free market acceptable, and when does government need to intervene?
-
What can a person "get away with" in terms of the religion they worship? (human sacrifice? bigotry? bigamy?)
-
When, if ever, should a government exert force upon another country?
I think all positions taken, Right, Left, Center, should be informed by the ideal of liberalism. Freedom from restriction should be the first consideration; the problems with society and how to impose the limits to correct its ills determine your stance.One point you make I agree wholeheartedly with is the idea of referring to "left" and "right". Even when used correctly, the center is a better place to be. I refer to that as centrist, however, not necessarily "Liberal".
WRT to my Dem/Rep crack, it was just a joke (shamefully, stolen). I don't really think the Republicans think poor people should die. (well, Tancredo believes poor Hispanics should die, but that's because he's a racist dick, not because he's a Republican)
Your points are interesting. Can one posit that the meanings of Right and Left have shifted through usage? Not to defend my original statements; I'm more interested in the basic political philosophy than proving my point from above. To restate - has usage/time changed the meaning of Right and Left, and if so, what is the new meaning? This also goes back to media like the Economist - do you believe they're utilizing your definition or a different one?
And as a side note, doesn't Liberalism ultimately fail if it fails to define limits on individual freedoms? Aren't those limits the core of what Right/Left should be about? (assuming we're running with a dualistic sort of idea. . . I realize that's limiting in and of itself but I was raised Christian so dualistic thought habits fall into place naturally)
I do disagree with your characterization of both Right and Left. . . you characterized both as their enemies would. Which has a chilling effect on the (original) point of party affiliation, which was finding an appropriate answer to the problems we face as a nation (assuming you're a US Citizen).
The appropriate characterization would be the Democrats think that by helping the poor and less fortunate out, the society will benefit as a whole (a rising tide lifts all boats) while the Republicans think it would be better if the poor people just died.
(*tongue firmly in cheek*)
And even if they were, Democratic policies tend to reward the lower and middle class, thereby satisfying (from a utilitarian standpoint) a higher majority than the Republicans.
Hell, retarded values-voters who have been happily voting Repub, then bending over as they and their families' futures are sold down the river by Republicans who continually ass-fuck their "base" for the benefit of the top 1%, even those Republicans will ultimately be helped by democratic policies. Even if it means fags get to marry, which they'll hate and confuse with "policies that hurt them" when in reality it has jack and shit to do with their red necked ignorant asses.
No problem, I was just confused that you restated my points and then called me an idiot. :)
That was my point in the first place . . . that it wasn't "Yes Men" but real experts with genuine opinions. Then Mr Dittohead comes out with a whole "he was THE Yes President! He governed by focus group!" diatribe.
What's the point in arguing with that? It's pointless. I run through unpopular ideas he sponsored to prove a point for. . . what exactly? His mind's made up.
If you're legitimately interested in me disproving the baseless "Yes Man!" assertion, here's two of his more controversial (and certainly not focus group firendly) initiatives:
Gays in the military (wasn't this one popular!)
Free trade agreements, specifically signing NAFTA into law. Which is more of a right leaning thing, free trade and whatnot. (As a self described liberal, I lean right on free trade and believe it's important, similarly to Clinton. I'm also pro-fiscal discipline, another of Clinton's wonderful traits. I am also pro-random blow jobs)
The unofficial one is the second one down, with 160,000 friends. (If you search for Barack Obama) Currently it can be accessed here.
If they're pricks as campaign staffers, they'll be prick when it actually matters
Obama needs to spend some time with his campaign, it appears, as if he's bringing these guys to the dance it's time to spend my campaign contributions on a different candidate.
Really not much of a point in talking to someone who already made up their mind, now, is there? Good luck with that.
It was actually very refreshing, IMO.
Bush Jr, on the other hand, certainly has the problems of living in a bubble.
There was that one problem, where mob bosses were thinking "hey what can we do to make more money" . . . that problem was solved pretty well I think.