The Supreme Court decides which laws are unconstitutional, they haven't done so yet. Besides, the law in SD is a "current" law, one that the Dems don't support.
The supreme court rules on the legality of laws with regard to constitutionality. That doesn't mean before it goes through the courts it isn't obvious to anyone with a modicum of education that this particular law is unconstitutional, just like dozens of similar laws. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, is what it is.
And your affiliation?
Why would a person have an affiliation with regard to politics? Political parties are not sports teams. I'll vote for whatever individual I think will do the best job (unless voting strategically), regardless of what team they are on. Party affiliation is damaging because it allows people to be manipulated by emotional attacks on a party which they take personally because of their self identification with it.
I have no political affiliation and never plan to.
What the hell does that have to do with anything ? I didn't RTFA but it sounds like the problem is that they said that ALL parts of the Internet are accessible via the iPhone... not "all but flash and java"... which has nothing to do with "essential vs. non-essential", what-so-ever. Sounds like a simple case of false advertising to me.
Okay, let's extend the idea with an analogy. Can any computer access all of the internet? I mean is there any one computer that can play back every single video and audio and Web app format in existence? If I put up a video archive in a proprietary format that only my computer can read, does that mean no company can claim their system or service can access all of the internet?
The question with regard to false advertising laws is if Apple is intentionally deceiving end users and if those users are not getting what they expect as a result of the advertising. Thus the question of what people feel constitutes "the internet" is quite relevant. Should Microsoft be able to advertise IE as a "Web browser" when it cannot browse all of the Web because it cannot render some of the more recent Web standards and pages that make use of them? Should Firefox be able to advertise their program as a "Web browser" when it cannot render some Web pages that use proprietary standards written by Microsoft?
Personally, I think Apple should tone down their advertising or at least present reasonable qualifiers, but does the rest of the industry do the same? The question is a lot more grey than you're making it out to be, but then almost all false advertising suits are.
I never thought that I was the first person that realized the truth.
Yeah, funny how you realized the truth and expressed it in exactly the same words as old advertisements from the political party you favor. How coincidental.
The Democrats seem happy with the current abortion laws.
Except in places like SD.
Funny, it looks to me like the republicans just passed a new (unconstitutional) law regarding abortion in South Dakota. The Democrats just fought to prevent the law from being passed.
Pro-Second amendment Democrats still play second fiddle to Biden types.
Yup, most Democrats still favor strict gun control, but that doesn't make it the party platform, especially given the considerable variety of positions Democrats have on it. That's why it's important not to just vote by party and instead look at the actual positions of the people you're voting for.
How do you reconcile the view that democrats want blacks to be dependent when a huge number of them are black?
Crabs in a barrell[sic].
Who is it that is assuming blacks are intellectually inferior again? Oh if only those poor, stupid black people would realize that the Republican party is the party looking after their best interests. That's just sad.
I am a Republican, because the only other real choice is far worse.
I'm not trying to convince you not to vote Republican. I'm trying to get you to understand that you don't have to believe and promote a bunch of lies to justify your voting position. The Republicans are scumbags and so are the Democrats. Repeating and defending and trying to convince yourself that one set of lies is true so you don't feel so bad about voting for your team is just plain stupid.
I call bullshit. I have been using those exact same phrases since at least 1996.
Funny. I've been hearing those exact same phrases since the 80's. Try a Google search including them and you'll find thousands of hits. It's old rhetoric.
The Democrat party platform is really easy to sum up. 1. Socialized Healthcare. 2. Legal abortion on demand. 3. Ban guns. 4. Keep the blacks dependent. 5. Raise taxes.
What a joke. Socialized healthcare has been a recent development and McCain and the Republicans have presented a plan for it as well (albeit more limited than the Democrats). The Democrats seem happy with the current abortion laws. They're divided on the issue of gun control (for example the democratic representatives from my state are all pro-gun and their voting record shows it). How do you reconcile the view that democrats want blacks to be dependent when a huge number of them are black? Finally, both parties want to raise taxes and are consistently doing so. Republicans raise taxes because they dominate the poor states and benefit disproportionately from increases. The main difference is where the two parties want the money to go and who to tax (McCain's plan is to tax businesses and increase the deficit, whereas Obama wants to lower taxes on the poor and increase them for the wealthy).
I, personally, don't agree with either party, but you seem hopelessly biased tot he point that your statements are absurd. Lift your head from the sand and stop listening to the PR nonsense from your favorite team.
There is a difference between talking points and a different point of view.
Yes, there is. That's why I explained why the phrases you were using (phrases expressed exactly the same way as PR from the Republican party) were misleading. I thought perhaps you were misled by their intentional deception and would like a more accurate depiction of the Democratic party's platform.
When? Gun control disappeared as a big issue along with violent crime rates - and I doubt the GOP controlled Senate brought many gun control bills to the floor.
Primarily while serving in the Illinois state Senate.
I don't know why you have to classify a competent professional diplomat as a scumbag...
But he's not a professional diplomat. He's a professional politician and lawmaker who could conceivably end up as being president of the USA. As a lawmaker his track record has leaned towards benefiting himself, personally, by passing ineffective and unconstitutional laws to address whatever the latest hysteria is about. He seems primarily motivated by self interest and has shown he doesn't mind stomping on the constitution when it suits him. He plays the game. We don't need more people willing to play the game in positions of power. Fundamentally, I don't see him as any different than president Bush, except he hasn't been quite as successful and plays on a different team.
I'm sure he defers to experts in the areas he doesn't understand (Tech law)...
I'm not sure of that, but his competence is not the question. His motivation and methods are. If he listens to experts when he doesn't know something, that doesn't mean he's not using that expert knowledge to achieve goals I disagree with (like making himself money, gaining more power, restricting our civil liberties, etc.).
You, sir are discounting the Bradley Effect [wikipedia.org]. There are many Democrats who will not support a black candidate.
The Bradley effect is a real concern in accurately estimating the election results.
Democrat dogma holds that black people need special help, like affirmative action and quotas. Democrats believe that black people are inherantly inferior...
See, here's where you lost me. I'm not a democrat by any stretch of the imagination. Your characterization of the Democratic party platform, however, is just Republican party taking points. Certainly there are Democrats who feel blacks are inferior, including blacks themselves. The average Democrat, however, views affirmative action and quotas as a way to balance out historical inequity so that there can be a fair competition between individuals of all races going forward. It isn't racist to assume black people will be less successful than white people going forward, when black people start out in a worse economic position and with fewer opportunities. It would be great if we lived in a meritocracy and if hard work and intelligence were the deciding factors for economic success... but any competent economist will tell you that simply is not reality. The number one determining factor in how wealthy a person is, is how wealthy their parents were.
I digress. You don't need to understand the theory behind affirmative action programs, you need only understand that they are not inherently based upon any belief in the inferiority of a race, but rather about inferiority of social position.
It's really a 'Only Nixon could go to China' possibility. Only a black, urban-based Democratic leader could redirect the party on that issue.
I'd say during the run up to an election, only the presidential nominee could really shift public opinion of the party as a whole... regardless of the characteristics of that nominee.
However, watching McCain's rather painful campaign so far, I'm not convinced that McCain could actually successfully use this attack, simply because his campaign appears to be run by drunken buffoons.
He doesn't have to. The NRA has already earmarked funds for ads against Obama based upon the presumption that he is anti-gun. It's a fairly sound presumption based on his voting record, but it was funny to listen to the decision making process since they mostly recognize McCain as almost as bad and don't want him to win, hence no pro-McCain ads, just anti-Obama.
In any case, I live in the swing state of Michigan and I know a lot of people that will be voting for McCain solely on the issue of gun control. I know others who will be voting for a third party candidate instead of Obama, based on the same issue. It may not be the most important issue to you or I, but to a significant number of people it is the only issue they pay attention to.
Biden's first and foremost a diplomat (a strong internationalist...not a "coalition of the willing" kind of guy) and defender of civil rights/liberties -- Jesse Jackson even went on record saying his "clean" comment regarding Obama didn't make him a racist because of his strong leadership on the issue in the past.
Biden's credentials for international policy are not too bad and he's above average for economics (I think), but for civil rights and liberties he really doesn't impress me. He's seems to completely ignore civil rights and liberties when it suits his agenda or when he thinks he can score political points. If you look at the bills he's written and sponsored and campaigned heavily for you see:
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - which restricts gun ownership, creates new federal death penalties, expanded drug prohibition and increased jail time for non-violent drug crimes, and makes it impossible for inmates to get educational scholarships and improve themselves
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 - cited by the ACLU for violating equal protection and due process. It created mandatory AIDs testing for people charged but not convicted of any crimes. Part of it was eventually overturned as unconstitutional.
As for an endorsement by Jesse Jackson, well, when an unscrupulous sleaze endorses someone, there's a good chance they are just as big of a sleaze. Biden seems to be the typical career politician. He doesn't care about effective laws or civil liberties or the constitution, just the appearance of doing something so he can get re-elected.
As a geek, tech is important, but isn't foreign policy and the US standing in the world more important this election? If you had a choice between hiring an expert in one or the other this election, which would you choose?
Luckily, no one has to make such a choice. Obama can hire lots of competent experts. My reservations have little to do with his competence and everything to do with his character and voting record. He's a typical, scumbag, professional politician, exactly the kind I was hoping a "reform" candidate like Obama would eschew in favor of someone trustworthy. He might be a smart move for Obama, but I sure hope Biden has very, very limited power going forward and I'd sure hate to see a country run by him if Obama was elected and died in office.
Well, sure, any previous vote on any issue will alienate some voters.
But Obama repeatedly voted for gun control laws, which is what most people assume democrats will do.
I just think the Democratic party has reached the point where they do not actually care about gun control at the national level. And while Obama may take some flak for 'flip-flopping', McCain's going to have to do the same thing.
Because McCain is a Republican, most people who vote on the issue of gun ownership rights will vote for him by default, assuming he is less likely to pass gun control laws. Because Obama is a Democrat he has to go out of his way if he wants people to believe he is not anti-gun. It's just the reality of public perception at this point. Even if McCain and Obama had very similar voting records, people would be skeptical of Obama with regard to the issue, while assuming McCain was pro-gun.
Frankly, in the end, none of it really matters. Obama, at this point, would have to be found in bed with a dead male goat to lose the election.
He seems to be winning, but current events could change things significantly before it is all over. Also the presidential election is not all there is to the issue. The congressional seats could be just as important. A lot of powerful democrats these days are pro-gun, but it hasn't changed the national perception. Obama being proactive on the topic could benefit his own chances of being elected (not that he necessarily needs that right now) but it could help the democratic party as a whole... but only if he does it before being attacked on the issue in the press.
Except the Democrats no longer care about gun control, and haven't actually cared about it for almost a decade. And the Supreme Court decision gives them a way to cleanly and officially remove it from the equation.
Some do and some don't but it is the perception among 2nd Amendment supporters that matters. Even if McCain has a lousy record on gun control (from their perspective) the NRA is still spending money on anti-Obama ads because he's been as bad or worse and they run anti-democrat ads out of habit and people believe them and will vote anti-democrat out of habit as well. The democrats could probably pick up some votes if Obama were to make an issue of it and promise to strongly support the 2nd amendment, but I doubt they will. They will be conservative and not risk pissing off their base.
As for Biden's previous position...the nice thing about the VP slot is that positive positions made in the past help the candidate, whereas in positions the presidential candidate doesn't like, he can just override the VP's candidate. (Obama: Joe Biden and I have had a long talk about gun control, and while I have not convinced him of my position, he has agreed that, under me, he would vote in a manner consistent with my position.)
I don't think people will buy it. There are too many ways to paint Obama as the villain due to his voting record. If he tries to ignore it (as he almost certainly will) then any defense he and Biden present will seem like they're just flip flopping to try not to lose votes. Basically I don't think most voters will find them credible. I know I wouldn't. They're politicians. If they bring it up before it is raised as an issue by others and make their position clear and pro-gun ownership for private citizens it would be news and reach people and might have some credibility. I just doubt that will happen.
Here are a couple of basic facts omitted by the submitter: Obama got a 50.00% rating and McCain got a 31.25% rating.
Given that that information was available via two clicks on the same page that yielded Biden's rating, and given that the positions of the presidential candidates is a lot more important than the positions of the VP candidates, one has to wonder why the submitter didn't find those details worth mentioning.
Maybe he was concerned that Obama had picked a running mate that has a poor track record and that the influence of such a person might be detrimental to technology issues if Obama is elected. Your perspective on this seems focused on if you should vote for Obama of McCain in the next election. Perhaps the submitter had already decided to vote for Obama, isn't changing their mind because of this choice, but is still concerned and wanted to voice that concern. Not every topic brought up for discussion needs to be viewed from whether it helps or hurts your favorite candidate's chances of election.
Additionally, Obama made it very clear before he announced his choice of Biden that he wanted a VP candidate who would engage him in discussions about issues, disagree with him, and challenge his assumptions.
So he did. And that, leaves us with hope that Biden will cause less damage than we might otherwise assume.
Another thing: a voting record is useful for evaluating a congresscritter, but not via a simple number. It requires more careful analysis. This is because a congressvarmints will sometimes vote for positions he opposes when the defeat of those positions is assured, but the positions are popular with the congressvarmint's constituents (or the opposite: vote against a position he supports when passage is assured without his vote).
True, but not really applicable here. Most of the legislation people are worried about are bills he sponsored or wrote himself. He seems to be one of those uber-politicos who waits for a hot-button topic, then writes legislation that appeals to the emotions of people upset by said topic... with no regard for civil liberties, constitutionality, or real effectiveness. Really, he seems like a dirtbag from my preliminary research, but I suppose I had too high of hopes that Obama's reform platform might cause him to pick a real reformer with principals. Not that this is necessarily a poor decision by Obama. It might be very good strategy. I just don't like scummy politicians being appointed to any sort of power when there are so many good men and women out there.
What's the penalty for this kind of thing, in terms of the company and individuals? I hope there's some personal liability in there somewhere.
I believe the criminal penalties max out at $5,000 and two years. Multiply that by the number of incidents and it could be some money, but I doubt anyone will go to jail. The civil liabilities, however, might rack up some additional costs if all the people they testify against sue them and the RIAA for court fees and damages resulting from their illegal investigation.
Antitrust law doesn't prohibit monopolies. It prohibits monopolization. To run into antitrust problems, you don't have to have 100% of a market. Google is powerful enough in some segments of search that antitrust issues would not be surprising.
It is quite clear most people don't know squat about monopolies or monopoly abuse in the legal sense. I'm not saying you don't, just that it is clear most people don't. That said, if you're concerned about Google running afoul of antitrust laws and want to be taken seriously you need to clearly present two things:
A definition of the market you think they have monopoly influence in.
An example of the abuse you think they are using their influence in that market to perpetrate and what second market that abuse is affecting.
Without both these elements all we have is vague hand waving. For example, in one of the Microsoft cases they were found to have monopoly influence on the "desktop OS" market and abusing that influence by tying their desktop and server OS's to undermine the server OS market. With such a case we can discuss the market and why other products do or do not constitute competitive alternatives and we can discuss the abusive action, as to why and how and if it undermines that second market.
Please, if people really think Google may be an abusive monopoly, please connect all the dots and tells us how.
No, but look at it, just about every atheist in this world has been exposed to some religion be it with the media, general talk, or just how society acts. Without any hint of spirituality we would be more like animals and have no reason to be different.
What's wrong with animals? From my perspective, humans are animals, but that's not an insult. Animals feel emotions and think and empathize with others... if not always to the same degree as most humans. I could even argue some animal societies seem more altruistic and advanced than our own in the ways that matter to me.
...and partly in the hope that somebody does something nice for you when you're gone. Doesn't mean you really think that they're out there somewhere watching, or that the position will have some apres vie meaning.
If you don't believe in the supernatural, then it is impossible for someone to do something nice for you "when you're gone" because you no longer exist. If I dress up a corpse in a tutu is that doing something nice for Qweblixion, the imaginary person I just made up and who never existed? No. He does not exist and, hence, does not know or care. You can't be nice to someone who doesn't exist, nor can you be nice to someone who no longer exists.
I'm an atheist, have been all my life. Yet, I was always nice to my teddy bear. It's not like I believe that the thing is alive, has feelings, has a soul, or anything like that... but still, even today, I'll make sure that it sits in a comfortable spot.
When someone I care about dies, their mortal remains are no more capable of suffering than my inanimate teddy bear, and yet, I'll do my best to give them a decent funeral. Why? Because it feels wrong not to, that's all.
This is called Anthropomorphism. You are subconsciously attributing human attributes to nonhumans (a teddy bear and a corpse) and empathizing with the feelings and comfort levels they don't have.
To assume that there is anything spiritual going on in situations like that is facile at best.
I never assumed it was the reason, as I clearly stated in my post. I suggested that spirituality was the most likely explanation because that is the most common reason for funerary preparations, when you look at all the cultures around the world. Thus, it is most likely that is the case for a culture we don't know enough about. It could still be any of the other reasons I listed.
Just because someone's dead is no reason to be mean to them, that's all.
Without spirituality, you can't harm the dead. They are dead and gone. All the corpse is is lifeless meat. Obviously not all people logically think that through though, so empathy and anthropomorphism are a potential motivating factor.
"Athiesm" only refers to disbelief in the Christian God - believe it or not, an Athiest can still be a very spiritual person.
Hmm, you're on a roll today. Again, the dictionary disagrees with you:
Atheism - Noun, absence of belief in deities.
I've heard valid arguments that it applies to a lack of belief in the supernatural, versus it applying to a lack of belief only in deities/gods. Using the latter, somewhat accepted definition, atheists can be spiritual, and I imagine a significant number of people who self identify with that title are. Using the former definition, they could not be. I've seen a number of sociological studies now that allow people to identify into the category of "spiritual, but not religious" and people do choose that option, people who do not choose "athiest."
Technically, spiritual refers to a belief in spirits or souls. The definition is:
Spiritual, adj. - of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things; of or relating to religion or religious belief
Care is not a synonym in the general use, nor do I think it applies in this usage. The implication is that because they buried bodies in a particular way, they had some belief, or potential belief in a resurrection or life after death, because otherwise, why bother arranging corpses in any way?
I don't think that implication is ironclad. For all we know they buried them alive and they simply died in that posture, or these people had no belief in an afterlife, but enjoyed arranging corpses as an art form. Still, spiritual beliefs are the most likely sounding explanation to me.
Are you sure it wasn't for Domestic Disturbance (which can include just getting into a shouting match).
The statute lists:
Assault or domestic assault
Aggravated assault or aggravated domestic assault
Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
I also note this applies to both police officers and ex-police officers with no restriction on why they were fired. Technically, I think this means if a cop is fired for beating his wife, the state is legally obligated to issue them a concealed pistol permit anyway (assuming they meet the other criteria).
As good of an idea this is, this wouldn't stand up in PvP. With deteriorating performance based on state, it becomes a contest of who gets the first shot. Any class with ranged or crowd control abilities would dominate every match-up.
I disagree. It would change the balance of power but not break it. The ability to absorb more damage before having problems or to avoid taking damage (heavy armor) would balance well with the ability to hit from a distance (as it does now). It would actually allow for more variety as well, because some attacks may not be as damaging, but could make hitting easier (wider range or area of effect) partly mitigating the effects of damage.
Even so, there's nothing illegal about balaclavas (aka 'ski masks') in just about any jurisdiction in the Western world. You can buy them at department stores, Wal*Mart, sporting goods stores, sometimes even the convenience store down on the corner sells them.
While I don't know anywhere it is illegal to sell or own them, there are numerous places I know where it is illegal to wear them. Many major cities have made it illegal to wear a mask of any sort. They just usually don't enforce the law unless they are looking to arrest someone and don't have a real charge or are looking for an additional charge to try to increase a person's punishment. Really, if you read the laws almost everyone is breaking some of them and that's the way the authorities like it.
Slashdot Mirror
The Supreme Court decides which laws are unconstitutional, they haven't done so yet. Besides, the law in SD is a "current" law, one that the Dems don't support.
The supreme court rules on the legality of laws with regard to constitutionality. That doesn't mean before it goes through the courts it isn't obvious to anyone with a modicum of education that this particular law is unconstitutional, just like dozens of similar laws. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, is what it is.
And your affiliation?
Why would a person have an affiliation with regard to politics? Political parties are not sports teams. I'll vote for whatever individual I think will do the best job (unless voting strategically), regardless of what team they are on. Party affiliation is damaging because it allows people to be manipulated by emotional attacks on a party which they take personally because of their self identification with it.
I have no political affiliation and never plan to.
What the hell does that have to do with anything ? I didn't RTFA but it sounds like the problem is that they said that ALL parts of the Internet are accessible via the iPhone ... not "all but flash and java" ... which has nothing to do with "essential vs. non-essential", what-so-ever. Sounds like a simple case of false advertising to me.
Okay, let's extend the idea with an analogy. Can any computer access all of the internet? I mean is there any one computer that can play back every single video and audio and Web app format in existence? If I put up a video archive in a proprietary format that only my computer can read, does that mean no company can claim their system or service can access all of the internet?
The question with regard to false advertising laws is if Apple is intentionally deceiving end users and if those users are not getting what they expect as a result of the advertising. Thus the question of what people feel constitutes "the internet" is quite relevant. Should Microsoft be able to advertise IE as a "Web browser" when it cannot browse all of the Web because it cannot render some of the more recent Web standards and pages that make use of them? Should Firefox be able to advertise their program as a "Web browser" when it cannot render some Web pages that use proprietary standards written by Microsoft?
Personally, I think Apple should tone down their advertising or at least present reasonable qualifiers, but does the rest of the industry do the same? The question is a lot more grey than you're making it out to be, but then almost all false advertising suits are.
I never thought that I was the first person that realized the truth.
Yeah, funny how you realized the truth and expressed it in exactly the same words as old advertisements from the political party you favor. How coincidental.
The Democrats seem happy with the current abortion laws.
Except in places like SD.
Funny, it looks to me like the republicans just passed a new (unconstitutional) law regarding abortion in South Dakota. The Democrats just fought to prevent the law from being passed.
Pro-Second amendment Democrats still play second fiddle to Biden types.
Yup, most Democrats still favor strict gun control, but that doesn't make it the party platform, especially given the considerable variety of positions Democrats have on it. That's why it's important not to just vote by party and instead look at the actual positions of the people you're voting for.
How do you reconcile the view that democrats want blacks to be dependent when a huge number of them are black?
Crabs in a barrell[sic].
Who is it that is assuming blacks are intellectually inferior again? Oh if only those poor, stupid black people would realize that the Republican party is the party looking after their best interests. That's just sad.
I am a Republican, because the only other real choice is far worse.
I'm not trying to convince you not to vote Republican. I'm trying to get you to understand that you don't have to believe and promote a bunch of lies to justify your voting position. The Republicans are scumbags and so are the Democrats. Repeating and defending and trying to convince yourself that one set of lies is true so you don't feel so bad about voting for your team is just plain stupid.
I call bullshit. I have been using those exact same phrases since at least 1996.
Funny. I've been hearing those exact same phrases since the 80's. Try a Google search including them and you'll find thousands of hits. It's old rhetoric.
The Democrat party platform is really easy to sum up. 1. Socialized Healthcare. 2. Legal abortion on demand. 3. Ban guns. 4. Keep the blacks dependent. 5. Raise taxes.
What a joke. Socialized healthcare has been a recent development and McCain and the Republicans have presented a plan for it as well (albeit more limited than the Democrats). The Democrats seem happy with the current abortion laws. They're divided on the issue of gun control (for example the democratic representatives from my state are all pro-gun and their voting record shows it). How do you reconcile the view that democrats want blacks to be dependent when a huge number of them are black? Finally, both parties want to raise taxes and are consistently doing so. Republicans raise taxes because they dominate the poor states and benefit disproportionately from increases. The main difference is where the two parties want the money to go and who to tax (McCain's plan is to tax businesses and increase the deficit, whereas Obama wants to lower taxes on the poor and increase them for the wealthy).
I, personally, don't agree with either party, but you seem hopelessly biased tot he point that your statements are absurd. Lift your head from the sand and stop listening to the PR nonsense from your favorite team.
There is a difference between talking points and a different point of view.
Yes, there is. That's why I explained why the phrases you were using (phrases expressed exactly the same way as PR from the Republican party) were misleading. I thought perhaps you were misled by their intentional deception and would like a more accurate depiction of the Democratic party's platform.
But Obama repeatedly voted for gun control laws
When? Gun control disappeared as a big issue along with violent crime rates - and I doubt the GOP controlled Senate brought many gun control bills to the floor.
Primarily while serving in the Illinois state Senate.
I don't know why you have to classify a competent professional diplomat as a scumbag...
But he's not a professional diplomat. He's a professional politician and lawmaker who could conceivably end up as being president of the USA. As a lawmaker his track record has leaned towards benefiting himself, personally, by passing ineffective and unconstitutional laws to address whatever the latest hysteria is about. He seems primarily motivated by self interest and has shown he doesn't mind stomping on the constitution when it suits him. He plays the game. We don't need more people willing to play the game in positions of power. Fundamentally, I don't see him as any different than president Bush, except he hasn't been quite as successful and plays on a different team.
I'm sure he defers to experts in the areas he doesn't understand (Tech law)...
I'm not sure of that, but his competence is not the question. His motivation and methods are. If he listens to experts when he doesn't know something, that doesn't mean he's not using that expert knowledge to achieve goals I disagree with (like making himself money, gaining more power, restricting our civil liberties, etc.).
You, sir are discounting the Bradley Effect [wikipedia.org]. There are many Democrats who will not support a black candidate.
The Bradley effect is a real concern in accurately estimating the election results.
Democrat dogma holds that black people need special help, like affirmative action and quotas. Democrats believe that black people are inherantly inferior...
See, here's where you lost me. I'm not a democrat by any stretch of the imagination. Your characterization of the Democratic party platform, however, is just Republican party taking points. Certainly there are Democrats who feel blacks are inferior, including blacks themselves. The average Democrat, however, views affirmative action and quotas as a way to balance out historical inequity so that there can be a fair competition between individuals of all races going forward. It isn't racist to assume black people will be less successful than white people going forward, when black people start out in a worse economic position and with fewer opportunities. It would be great if we lived in a meritocracy and if hard work and intelligence were the deciding factors for economic success... but any competent economist will tell you that simply is not reality. The number one determining factor in how wealthy a person is, is how wealthy their parents were.
I digress. You don't need to understand the theory behind affirmative action programs, you need only understand that they are not inherently based upon any belief in the inferiority of a race, but rather about inferiority of social position.
It's really a 'Only Nixon could go to China' possibility. Only a black, urban-based Democratic leader could redirect the party on that issue.
I'd say during the run up to an election, only the presidential nominee could really shift public opinion of the party as a whole... regardless of the characteristics of that nominee.
However, watching McCain's rather painful campaign so far, I'm not convinced that McCain could actually successfully use this attack, simply because his campaign appears to be run by drunken buffoons.
He doesn't have to. The NRA has already earmarked funds for ads against Obama based upon the presumption that he is anti-gun. It's a fairly sound presumption based on his voting record, but it was funny to listen to the decision making process since they mostly recognize McCain as almost as bad and don't want him to win, hence no pro-McCain ads, just anti-Obama.
In any case, I live in the swing state of Michigan and I know a lot of people that will be voting for McCain solely on the issue of gun control. I know others who will be voting for a third party candidate instead of Obama, based on the same issue. It may not be the most important issue to you or I, but to a significant number of people it is the only issue they pay attention to.
Biden's first and foremost a diplomat (a strong internationalist...not a "coalition of the willing" kind of guy) and defender of civil rights/liberties -- Jesse Jackson even went on record saying his "clean" comment regarding Obama didn't make him a racist because of his strong leadership on the issue in the past.
Biden's credentials for international policy are not too bad and he's above average for economics (I think), but for civil rights and liberties he really doesn't impress me. He's seems to completely ignore civil rights and liberties when it suits his agenda or when he thinks he can score political points. If you look at the bills he's written and sponsored and campaigned heavily for you see:
As for an endorsement by Jesse Jackson, well, when an unscrupulous sleaze endorses someone, there's a good chance they are just as big of a sleaze. Biden seems to be the typical career politician. He doesn't care about effective laws or civil liberties or the constitution, just the appearance of doing something so he can get re-elected.
As a geek, tech is important, but isn't foreign policy and the US standing in the world more important this election? If you had a choice between hiring an expert in one or the other this election, which would you choose?
Luckily, no one has to make such a choice. Obama can hire lots of competent experts. My reservations have little to do with his competence and everything to do with his character and voting record. He's a typical, scumbag, professional politician, exactly the kind I was hoping a "reform" candidate like Obama would eschew in favor of someone trustworthy. He might be a smart move for Obama, but I sure hope Biden has very, very limited power going forward and I'd sure hate to see a country run by him if Obama was elected and died in office.
Well, sure, any previous vote on any issue will alienate some voters.
But Obama repeatedly voted for gun control laws, which is what most people assume democrats will do.
I just think the Democratic party has reached the point where they do not actually care about gun control at the national level. And while Obama may take some flak for 'flip-flopping', McCain's going to have to do the same thing.
Because McCain is a Republican, most people who vote on the issue of gun ownership rights will vote for him by default, assuming he is less likely to pass gun control laws. Because Obama is a Democrat he has to go out of his way if he wants people to believe he is not anti-gun. It's just the reality of public perception at this point. Even if McCain and Obama had very similar voting records, people would be skeptical of Obama with regard to the issue, while assuming McCain was pro-gun.
Frankly, in the end, none of it really matters. Obama, at this point, would have to be found in bed with a dead male goat to lose the election.
He seems to be winning, but current events could change things significantly before it is all over. Also the presidential election is not all there is to the issue. The congressional seats could be just as important. A lot of powerful democrats these days are pro-gun, but it hasn't changed the national perception. Obama being proactive on the topic could benefit his own chances of being elected (not that he necessarily needs that right now) but it could help the democratic party as a whole... but only if he does it before being attacked on the issue in the press.
Except the Democrats no longer care about gun control, and haven't actually cared about it for almost a decade. And the Supreme Court decision gives them a way to cleanly and officially remove it from the equation.
Some do and some don't but it is the perception among 2nd Amendment supporters that matters. Even if McCain has a lousy record on gun control (from their perspective) the NRA is still spending money on anti-Obama ads because he's been as bad or worse and they run anti-democrat ads out of habit and people believe them and will vote anti-democrat out of habit as well. The democrats could probably pick up some votes if Obama were to make an issue of it and promise to strongly support the 2nd amendment, but I doubt they will. They will be conservative and not risk pissing off their base.
As for Biden's previous position...the nice thing about the VP slot is that positive positions made in the past help the candidate, whereas in positions the presidential candidate doesn't like, he can just override the VP's candidate. (Obama: Joe Biden and I have had a long talk about gun control, and while I have not convinced him of my position, he has agreed that, under me, he would vote in a manner consistent with my position.)
I don't think people will buy it. There are too many ways to paint Obama as the villain due to his voting record. If he tries to ignore it (as he almost certainly will) then any defense he and Biden present will seem like they're just flip flopping to try not to lose votes. Basically I don't think most voters will find them credible. I know I wouldn't. They're politicians. If they bring it up before it is raised as an issue by others and make their position clear and pro-gun ownership for private citizens it would be news and reach people and might have some credibility. I just doubt that will happen.
Here are a couple of basic facts omitted by the submitter: Obama got a 50.00% rating and McCain got a 31.25% rating. Given that that information was available via two clicks on the same page that yielded Biden's rating, and given that the positions of the presidential candidates is a lot more important than the positions of the VP candidates, one has to wonder why the submitter didn't find those details worth mentioning.
Maybe he was concerned that Obama had picked a running mate that has a poor track record and that the influence of such a person might be detrimental to technology issues if Obama is elected. Your perspective on this seems focused on if you should vote for Obama of McCain in the next election. Perhaps the submitter had already decided to vote for Obama, isn't changing their mind because of this choice, but is still concerned and wanted to voice that concern. Not every topic brought up for discussion needs to be viewed from whether it helps or hurts your favorite candidate's chances of election.
Additionally, Obama made it very clear before he announced his choice of Biden that he wanted a VP candidate who would engage him in discussions about issues, disagree with him, and challenge his assumptions.
So he did. And that, leaves us with hope that Biden will cause less damage than we might otherwise assume.
Another thing: a voting record is useful for evaluating a congresscritter, but not via a simple number. It requires more careful analysis. This is because a congressvarmints will sometimes vote for positions he opposes when the defeat of those positions is assured, but the positions are popular with the congressvarmint's constituents (or the opposite: vote against a position he supports when passage is assured without his vote).
True, but not really applicable here. Most of the legislation people are worried about are bills he sponsored or wrote himself. He seems to be one of those uber-politicos who waits for a hot-button topic, then writes legislation that appeals to the emotions of people upset by said topic... with no regard for civil liberties, constitutionality, or real effectiveness. Really, he seems like a dirtbag from my preliminary research, but I suppose I had too high of hopes that Obama's reform platform might cause him to pick a real reformer with principals. Not that this is necessarily a poor decision by Obama. It might be very good strategy. I just don't like scummy politicians being appointed to any sort of power when there are so many good men and women out there.
What's the penalty for this kind of thing, in terms of the company and individuals? I hope there's some personal liability in there somewhere.
I believe the criminal penalties max out at $5,000 and two years. Multiply that by the number of incidents and it could be some money, but I doubt anyone will go to jail. The civil liabilities, however, might rack up some additional costs if all the people they testify against sue them and the RIAA for court fees and damages resulting from their illegal investigation.
Antitrust law doesn't prohibit monopolies. It prohibits monopolization. To run into antitrust problems, you don't have to have 100% of a market. Google is powerful enough in some segments of search that antitrust issues would not be surprising.
It is quite clear most people don't know squat about monopolies or monopoly abuse in the legal sense. I'm not saying you don't, just that it is clear most people don't. That said, if you're concerned about Google running afoul of antitrust laws and want to be taken seriously you need to clearly present two things:
Without both these elements all we have is vague hand waving. For example, in one of the Microsoft cases they were found to have monopoly influence on the "desktop OS" market and abusing that influence by tying their desktop and server OS's to undermine the server OS market. With such a case we can discuss the market and why other products do or do not constitute competitive alternatives and we can discuss the abusive action, as to why and how and if it undermines that second market.
Please, if people really think Google may be an abusive monopoly, please connect all the dots and tells us how.
No, but look at it, just about every atheist in this world has been exposed to some religion be it with the media, general talk, or just how society acts. Without any hint of spirituality we would be more like animals and have no reason to be different.
What's wrong with animals? From my perspective, humans are animals, but that's not an insult. Animals feel emotions and think and empathize with others... if not always to the same degree as most humans. I could even argue some animal societies seem more altruistic and advanced than our own in the ways that matter to me.
Why is it obvious that it wasn't for sanitary reasons?
What sanitary reason is there for arranging bodies such that the adult is hugging the children?
...and partly in the hope that somebody does something nice for you when you're gone. Doesn't mean you really think that they're out there somewhere watching, or that the position will have some apres vie meaning.
If you don't believe in the supernatural, then it is impossible for someone to do something nice for you "when you're gone" because you no longer exist. If I dress up a corpse in a tutu is that doing something nice for Qweblixion, the imaginary person I just made up and who never existed? No. He does not exist and, hence, does not know or care. You can't be nice to someone who doesn't exist, nor can you be nice to someone who no longer exists.
I'm an atheist, have been all my life. Yet, I was always nice to my teddy bear. It's not like I believe that the thing is alive, has feelings, has a soul, or anything like that... but still, even today, I'll make sure that it sits in a comfortable spot. When someone I care about dies, their mortal remains are no more capable of suffering than my inanimate teddy bear, and yet, I'll do my best to give them a decent funeral. Why? Because it feels wrong not to, that's all.
This is called Anthropomorphism. You are subconsciously attributing human attributes to nonhumans (a teddy bear and a corpse) and empathizing with the feelings and comfort levels they don't have.
To assume that there is anything spiritual going on in situations like that is facile at best.
I never assumed it was the reason, as I clearly stated in my post. I suggested that spirituality was the most likely explanation because that is the most common reason for funerary preparations, when you look at all the cultures around the world. Thus, it is most likely that is the case for a culture we don't know enough about. It could still be any of the other reasons I listed.
Just because someone's dead is no reason to be mean to them, that's all.
Without spirituality, you can't harm the dead. They are dead and gone. All the corpse is is lifeless meat. Obviously not all people logically think that through though, so empathy and anthropomorphism are a potential motivating factor.
"Athiesm" only refers to disbelief in the Christian God - believe it or not, an Athiest can still be a very spiritual person.
Hmm, you're on a roll today. Again, the dictionary disagrees with you:
Atheism - Noun, absence of belief in deities.
I've heard valid arguments that it applies to a lack of belief in the supernatural, versus it applying to a lack of belief only in deities/gods. Using the latter, somewhat accepted definition, atheists can be spiritual, and I imagine a significant number of people who self identify with that title are. Using the former definition, they could not be. I've seen a number of sociological studies now that allow people to identify into the category of "spiritual, but not religious" and people do choose that option, people who do not choose "athiest."
Care = spiritual.
Technically, spiritual refers to a belief in spirits or souls. The definition is:
Spiritual, adj. - of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things; of or relating to religion or religious belief
Care is not a synonym in the general use, nor do I think it applies in this usage. The implication is that because they buried bodies in a particular way, they had some belief, or potential belief in a resurrection or life after death, because otherwise, why bother arranging corpses in any way?
I don't think that implication is ironclad. For all we know they buried them alive and they simply died in that posture, or these people had no belief in an afterlife, but enjoyed arranging corpses as an art form. Still, spiritual beliefs are the most likely sounding explanation to me.
nine out of ten policemen think its important to keep drugs illegal, because otherwise they will have to buy their own.
There are some vocal dissenters though.
Are you sure it wasn't for Domestic Disturbance (which can include just getting into a shouting match).
The statute lists:
I also note this applies to both police officers and ex-police officers with no restriction on why they were fired. Technically, I think this means if a cop is fired for beating his wife, the state is legally obligated to issue them a concealed pistol permit anyway (assuming they meet the other criteria).
As good of an idea this is, this wouldn't stand up in PvP. With deteriorating performance based on state, it becomes a contest of who gets the first shot. Any class with ranged or crowd control abilities would dominate every match-up.
I disagree. It would change the balance of power but not break it. The ability to absorb more damage before having problems or to avoid taking damage (heavy armor) would balance well with the ability to hit from a distance (as it does now). It would actually allow for more variety as well, because some attacks may not be as damaging, but could make hitting easier (wider range or area of effect) partly mitigating the effects of damage.
Even so, there's nothing illegal about balaclavas (aka 'ski masks') in just about any jurisdiction in the Western world. You can buy them at department stores, Wal*Mart, sporting goods stores, sometimes even the convenience store down on the corner sells them.
While I don't know anywhere it is illegal to sell or own them, there are numerous places I know where it is illegal to wear them. Many major cities have made it illegal to wear a mask of any sort. They just usually don't enforce the law unless they are looking to arrest someone and don't have a real charge or are looking for an additional charge to try to increase a person's punishment. Really, if you read the laws almost everyone is breaking some of them and that's the way the authorities like it.