You have no idea what it will or will not address. When the first scientists were mucking around with electricity in the 18th century they were giving people shocks and making frogs legs jump. Within a hundred years they were rolling out the world's first global high speed communication's system.
So take your contrarianism and stick it up your ass. Your type would have us still beating each other with sticks, because, you know, what good does that shiny shit in the ground do us?
So they've basically wasted their vote, because they've picked a candidate that cannot win. How exactly is that taking on the Establishment?
And really, how is Trump not the Establishment? He's a semi-successful property tycoon (we may end up finding out just how semi-successful he really is when the Trump University case wends its way into a full trial).
With Trump as the Republican nominee, I'm having a hard time envisioning the Democratic candidate who couldn't beat him. I guess maybe a clone of Adolf Hitler or Idi Amin might not be able to overcome the Donald, but I think you could have literally picked anyone from the Democratic slate and they would beat him. He is one of the worst candidates a major political party has ever fielded.
By some counts, Clinton has opened up a two digit lead. Even Obama had a lot harder slog than against Romney than Clinton appears to be having against Trump. Coupled with over 2 out of 3 Americans actively disliking the man, and considering he's pretty much wiped out his chances in several battleground states with his absolutely moronic attack on a judge whose parents were Americans, where is it do you think his path to victory will come from? There's only so many ignorant racists out there.
For chrissake, I'd argue that hasn't been a presidential election in over half a century were someone like Trump could win, but there's no way he's going to find a path in 2016. Even the Republicans know it. They hoped he'd start behaving presidentially after the primaries, but he's made it clear he intends to continue being ten kinds of crazy bigot.
He's already made it clear he thinks Putin's a good guy, so I think he's insulated himself even against that. I don't think Trump could do anything that would sway his supporters.
The problem being his supporters are a minority, so in a way, it's irrelevant what they think.
It's not very hard. Trump basically gives them a whole new load of attack pieces every fucking day. I'm not even sure why they have a secret strategy to go after him at all. It's like having the GPS coordinates of a bullseye 10 miles wide.
It's irrelevant, really. Trump has absolutely no chance of winning. Christ, even the GOP knows it, and the number of senior Republicans who are either starting to say "No comment" a lot or outright stating they won't vote for him themselves is growing every day. At this point, I can only assume it's either Trump's utterly delusional fanbase or grumpy GOPers who still think that if they just attack enough times, somehow Trump will win.
I honestly hope the Republicans finally excise the lunatics from the party. They're going to have to, because the demographic war is not in their favor, and the more they cater to grumpy old men and Libertarian fruitcakes, the worse their long term fortunes will get.
If she's so fucking bad, then why did the GOP's two top nominees for her challenger represent the two most backward and unelectable factions of the party?
The current detectors are the most sensitive instruments ever developed by humanity, and in and of themselves mark a major leap forward in technical ability.
I agree. I think it's absolutely brilliant, and a way to really prevent abusive practices without an absolute ban. Non-competes really are abused and I think making a company have to pay an ex-employee during the non-compete term is a reasonable measure, considering in a way you and your ex-employer are still legally entwined.
Never seen the film. Never likely to see the film.
But do know that even small increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to increased energy (temperature) in the lower atmosphere, which means warming. In other words, human burning of fossil fuels have and will continue to drive significant changes in global climate.
The only work of fiction is believing that there's a magical heat sink that makes all the IR radiation CO2 molecules emit shoot back into space.
One might suggest that the No True Scotsman fallacy truly isn't very compelling, and indicates more about the person committing the fallacy than about the objects of his fallacious reasoning.
Basically, "Whoever your favorite character is, he or she will die and become a zombie which the rest of the gang will then immediately savagely kill."
Why even refer to the building? It can just be reported as "Several people of unimportant sexuality in a place in Orlando, Florida were killed by a MUSLIM!!!!!"
You know, political discourse was well-nigh retarded before Trump. Now it's literally at a level where it requires no higher brain function at all, just regular firing of the amygdala when the words "Muslim" or "Mexican" are mentioned.
Women in most countries gained full political and legal rights in the last 100 or so years in the enlightened West. In fact, women in the US gained full political rights decades AFTER the 13th Amendment freed the slaves.
General contempt of women is a part of many societies and civilizations, and hardly limited to Islam. In fact, there are a number of Christian sects that believe in the subjugation of women to men.
Sodomy was still illegal in 13 states until 2003. The punishments weren't so extreme, but it was still possible for a gay man to be sentenced to prison and hard labor.
Take a perusal. This is a site largely populated by various strains of Traditionalist Catholics, and yes, they say some rather intemperate things about the LGBT community.
And what does it matter how many people Jesus killed? His followers have killed plenty. Do you think the Templars went into Eastern Europe with flowers and gum drops to convert all the heathen Prussians and Lithuanians? Christendom's marshal nature has been on display ever since Constantine declared he'd seen a cross in the sky. No matter how much you'd like to sever Christianity's militaristic zeal to convert, it most certainly existed, and a somewhat more benign form persisted to the modern day, where all those kindly missionaries went into China and Africa to convert all those nasty heathens, all with the approval of the foremost Great Powers of Europe, who wanted the natives nice and softened up.
Which is a lovely interpretation, but not one shared by all Christians. Several hundred million Christians tie this directly to the Levitican ban on gay sex (at least male sex, apparently the ancient Hebrews were like Queen Victoria in disbelieving that lesbians existed).
And that's really the root of the problem. If you're a member of a nice liberal Christian church, you will interpret intemperate passages in a way that doesn't require you to declare certain groups of people sinners that are bound for the fires of Hell. In Islam there are similar schools of thought, that the Koran and Hadith's more intemperate passages shouldn't be interpreted literally, or that they should be read in the light of some larger eschatology rather than being singled out. But then, as with Christianity, there are many Muslims who do interpret such passages in the most literal possible terms.
The real problem is that while in most Western countries, churches' ability to influence government policy and judicial activity is fairly restricted, whereas in many Muslim countries, a sort of headless Caesaro-Papism merges justice and religion into one whole entity, so that what they view as God's will must necessarily be the will of the state.
Ah yes, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion may not be true, but, y'know, there's this Jewish PR campaign...
It's this sort of thinking that's some distance on the way to out and out hatred of gays. I mean, how dare people in a free and open society take advantage of that, right?
Slashdot Mirror
You have no idea what it will or will not address. When the first scientists were mucking around with electricity in the 18th century they were giving people shocks and making frogs legs jump. Within a hundred years they were rolling out the world's first global high speed communication's system.
So take your contrarianism and stick it up your ass. Your type would have us still beating each other with sticks, because, you know, what good does that shiny shit in the ground do us?
So they've basically wasted their vote, because they've picked a candidate that cannot win. How exactly is that taking on the Establishment?
And really, how is Trump not the Establishment? He's a semi-successful property tycoon (we may end up finding out just how semi-successful he really is when the Trump University case wends its way into a full trial).
With Trump as the Republican nominee, I'm having a hard time envisioning the Democratic candidate who couldn't beat him. I guess maybe a clone of Adolf Hitler or Idi Amin might not be able to overcome the Donald, but I think you could have literally picked anyone from the Democratic slate and they would beat him. He is one of the worst candidates a major political party has ever fielded.
By some counts, Clinton has opened up a two digit lead. Even Obama had a lot harder slog than against Romney than Clinton appears to be having against Trump. Coupled with over 2 out of 3 Americans actively disliking the man, and considering he's pretty much wiped out his chances in several battleground states with his absolutely moronic attack on a judge whose parents were Americans, where is it do you think his path to victory will come from? There's only so many ignorant racists out there.
For chrissake, I'd argue that hasn't been a presidential election in over half a century were someone like Trump could win, but there's no way he's going to find a path in 2016. Even the Republicans know it. They hoped he'd start behaving presidentially after the primaries, but he's made it clear he intends to continue being ten kinds of crazy bigot.
Briefly. By the end of the 2008 campaign, even John McCain realized just how freakishly unqualified she was.
And they weren't telling the truth.
He's already made it clear he thinks Putin's a good guy, so I think he's insulated himself even against that. I don't think Trump could do anything that would sway his supporters.
The problem being his supporters are a minority, so in a way, it's irrelevant what they think.
It's not very hard. Trump basically gives them a whole new load of attack pieces every fucking day. I'm not even sure why they have a secret strategy to go after him at all. It's like having the GPS coordinates of a bullseye 10 miles wide.
Whatever Schwarzenegger is, he's no Trump. Most of his platform was fairly reasoned, though he did have to give the odd policy nod to the Republicans.
It's irrelevant, really. Trump has absolutely no chance of winning. Christ, even the GOP knows it, and the number of senior Republicans who are either starting to say "No comment" a lot or outright stating they won't vote for him themselves is growing every day. At this point, I can only assume it's either Trump's utterly delusional fanbase or grumpy GOPers who still think that if they just attack enough times, somehow Trump will win.
I honestly hope the Republicans finally excise the lunatics from the party. They're going to have to, because the demographic war is not in their favor, and the more they cater to grumpy old men and Libertarian fruitcakes, the worse their long term fortunes will get.
If she's so fucking bad, then why did the GOP's two top nominees for her challenger represent the two most backward and unelectable factions of the party?
If I had to hazard a guess, with incredibly fine instruments, there's a risk of experimenter effect.
The current detectors are the most sensitive instruments ever developed by humanity, and in and of themselves mark a major leap forward in technical ability.
I agree. I think it's absolutely brilliant, and a way to really prevent abusive practices without an absolute ban. Non-competes really are abused and I think making a company have to pay an ex-employee during the non-compete term is a reasonable measure, considering in a way you and your ex-employer are still legally entwined.
Never seen the film. Never likely to see the film.
But do know that even small increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to increased energy (temperature) in the lower atmosphere, which means warming. In other words, human burning of fossil fuels have and will continue to drive significant changes in global climate.
The only work of fiction is believing that there's a magical heat sink that makes all the IR radiation CO2 molecules emit shoot back into space.
One might suggest that the No True Scotsman fallacy truly isn't very compelling, and indicates more about the person committing the fallacy than about the objects of his fallacious reasoning.
And what do the spoilers amount to?
Basically, "Whoever your favorite character is, he or she will die and become a zombie which the rest of the gang will then immediately savagely kill."
Why even refer to the building? It can just be reported as "Several people of unimportant sexuality in a place in Orlando, Florida were killed by a MUSLIM!!!!!"
You know, political discourse was well-nigh retarded before Trump. Now it's literally at a level where it requires no higher brain function at all, just regular firing of the amygdala when the words "Muslim" or "Mexican" are mentioned.
Women in most countries gained full political and legal rights in the last 100 or so years in the enlightened West. In fact, women in the US gained full political rights decades AFTER the 13th Amendment freed the slaves.
General contempt of women is a part of many societies and civilizations, and hardly limited to Islam. In fact, there are a number of Christian sects that believe in the subjugation of women to men.
Sodomy was still illegal in 13 states until 2003. The punishments weren't so extreme, but it was still possible for a gay man to be sentenced to prison and hard labor.
No, I labeled the claim that there was a gay agenda a conspiracy theory. It's not my fault your reading comprehension sucks.
http://forums.catholic.com/
Take a perusal. This is a site largely populated by various strains of Traditionalist Catholics, and yes, they say some rather intemperate things about the LGBT community.
And what does it matter how many people Jesus killed? His followers have killed plenty. Do you think the Templars went into Eastern Europe with flowers and gum drops to convert all the heathen Prussians and Lithuanians? Christendom's marshal nature has been on display ever since Constantine declared he'd seen a cross in the sky. No matter how much you'd like to sever Christianity's militaristic zeal to convert, it most certainly existed, and a somewhat more benign form persisted to the modern day, where all those kindly missionaries went into China and Africa to convert all those nasty heathens, all with the approval of the foremost Great Powers of Europe, who wanted the natives nice and softened up.
Which is a lovely interpretation, but not one shared by all Christians. Several hundred million Christians tie this directly to the Levitican ban on gay sex (at least male sex, apparently the ancient Hebrews were like Queen Victoria in disbelieving that lesbians existed).
And that's really the root of the problem. If you're a member of a nice liberal Christian church, you will interpret intemperate passages in a way that doesn't require you to declare certain groups of people sinners that are bound for the fires of Hell. In Islam there are similar schools of thought, that the Koran and Hadith's more intemperate passages shouldn't be interpreted literally, or that they should be read in the light of some larger eschatology rather than being singled out. But then, as with Christianity, there are many Muslims who do interpret such passages in the most literal possible terms.
The real problem is that while in most Western countries, churches' ability to influence government policy and judicial activity is fairly restricted, whereas in many Muslim countries, a sort of headless Caesaro-Papism merges justice and religion into one whole entity, so that what they view as God's will must necessarily be the will of the state.
Ah yes, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion may not be true, but, y'know, there's this Jewish PR campaign...
It's this sort of thinking that's some distance on the way to out and out hatred of gays. I mean, how dare people in a free and open society take advantage of that, right?
So you consider violent protesters to be terrorists?