People who voted party line didn't vote for the Democrats, they voted against the Republicans. Not because they didn't believe in the politics of the GOP anymore, but because they felt the need to send a nasty message
What are you proposing their "nasty message" was regarding? Their fascist politics is all they stand for, so what totally foreign thing do you think the message was in reference to?!?
Re:Guarantee of Reliability is not Free
on
NYSE Moves to Linux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Also, people need to remember whose market share is being eaten away by this particular 'win' by Linux: the legacy Unix market is being eroded. Not Microsoft at all.
That's absolutely true.
Microsoft would have really liked to have that contract though. Both for the revenue and for the bragging rights. So it, indeed, is not eating into Microsoft's market share, but it did slow their growth, however slightly.
But when you get past the control of religions and some of the retarded interpretations, the underlying messages, the real ones, not the ones men have decided to create for some agenda, it is actually an admirable and good thing. Almost all religions aim for peace, goodwill, and generally all the things society thinks is good.
It is quite obvious that you've never even read the bible if you can make a statement of such audacious falsehood.
The Bible is all about brutally murdering anybody who disagrees. It is all about keeping the rulers in control and making sure the sheep know that the exist to serve. You should actually sit down and read the book before you spout idiotic nonsense like that.
Those are the real messages. The ones you're talking about are the ones men made up to suit their own agenda.
You clearly don't know a damn thing about the history of the religion either, since brutal murder and torture to "spread the faith" and keep the rulers in charge, largely by making up new dogma and declaring their enemies heretics and murdering them is how the canon came to be what it is.
It was only after the age of reason, when sanity started to gain traction that the churches started giving up their unequaled brutality. It was only in the 1920s that the Catholic Church gave up their official policy of a millenium of torture and murder of heretics. A heretic, of course, is anybody who disagreed with the power wielders.
So all your happy go lucky bullshit is very very new in the entire history of that brutally savage faith.
Spew all the lies you want, history proves you to be a liar.
But I don't think any politician takes orders from their church.
No, not in very recent years although that was the case for many hundreds of years of savage brutality. Noe, they are just in cahoots. The politicians fuck the people and the churches hold them down and tell them it;s god's will.
Money has a much greater influence then any religion does.
Yes, but religions are all about the money. Are you truly *that* fucking dense that you don't know the vast holdings of wealth of the churches and how their policies have been set to ensure their increase? Hell, why do you think the Catholic Church is little more than an organization dedicated to raping children. They wouldn't let priests marry so they would gain all of their inheritance. That's a big part of why it's the career of choice for child rapists. Not only do they get ultimate power, but since the church is far more concerned with maintaining and increasing their wealth and power than they are with the lives of their victims.
Your defense of such unmitigated greed, corruption, and unequalled atrocity says almost everything that really needs to be said about you.
Idiot posts like this that compare having your bags go through an x-ray machine at an airport with slaughtering millions of innocents really annoy me.
Perhaps you should actually read his post again and attempt to understand what he was actually saying.
He was debunking the cowardly excuse of "I'm just a soldier following orders". That's how the slaughter of millions *starts*. And it is the regular people just like that who do all of the actual atrocities. Hell look at cops with the drug war and the massive increase in the police state that that demanded. Not one decent human being or citizen could possibly join a police force after that started so we're guaranteed a police force of brutal thugs which is what we have as you would have noticed by now were you at all aware of your surroundings.
As they increase the assinine rules in airports, like the whole liquids thing (There was no plot, it isn't even feasible, but the rules are still there because Bush had to cry wolf again to keep you fools scared so you'd keep their licking boots as you did in this post), then you end up with a job that no decent human would take but you still have plenty of people signing up.
Years ago I was visiting the family of a Chinese friend of mine, and his father somehow got on the topic of the WWII. He had been a refugee as boy in China, and had experienced first hand being bombed and strafed by the Japanese in a refugee column. He was still angry and bitter. When you compare his experience watching friends and family die to your experience at an airport, you demean him, you demean millions and millions of people.
Then perhaps you should stop being the one to ignore the lessons learned with the various totalitariain regimes of the previous century and therefore demeaning your friend's losses? I mean it is really deeply sickening to watch people like you whine about how things aren't that bad so you should shut up about it while the whole time it is rapidly progressing down that same pathway. It's cowards like yourself who refuse to learn from history and refuse to look around them and apply those lessons that *allow* this to happen.
Stop it.
I certainly hope he doesn't, and I know I won't because we have seen this all before too many fucking times in history. Rather than asking others to please stop talking about reality so you can go back to hiding from it, how about you start acting like an adult and a citizen rather than a childish subject and a tool?
Now of course this is all at someones word, so I have no written proof.
I was born on Beale Air Force Base and my dad flew KC-135Qs doing inflight refueling of the SR-71s in Vietnam as well as many other places. He said more or less the same thing.
So now we have 2 anecdotal stories;-)
Plus I have neat picture of myself sitting on the wing of one when I was a tiny baby;-)
As someone outside of the situation, what would suggest? Seriously, because we seem to have no flippin' idea. None at all. Our elections have become fixed. Our politicians are totally corrupt. They've taken away all our rights and taxed us to death.
The last time this happened, we dumped a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor and told King George to go get fscked. Then we started shooting British soldiers.
It's simple. We *need* to start shooting politicians. All of the other boxes have failed completely. The ammo box is the only one left.
Well, it's true that while socialism and fascism seem like opposite ends on one particular spectrum, on the other hand, if you compare on a scale of "totalitarianism vs freedom", it turns out that the "left wing" in some countries like the USSR has more in common with the right-wing hard liners in another country.
The article I linked addresses the Nolan chart and similar and points out quite a few major flaws with that method of laying things out. Take traffic lights, for example. Obviously there are laws making you follow the lights, so that's authoritarianism. Yet they permit our current free ability to travel.
Certainly the extremes of both the left and the right share authoritarianism, but lumping them together like that hides much more than it reveals. Most obviously it hides what they're authoritarian about, against whom, and why.
You might find this (rather long) article interesting. It goes pretty in depth on the similarities nd differences between the left, the right and their mutual opposition to Liberalism (in the classical sense of the word). I learned a lot from it.
The idea of a risk-free enterprise sounds more like socialism to me, eh?
No, it's all the way to the other side... fascism.
Since the big wigs get to personally keep the money the government helped them "earn" it comes under the heading of fascism. Another way to look at it is "socialised costs, privatized profits" just like the private prison industry, private military contractors and the like.
That's the far opposite extreme from socialism and while they share similarities in atrocity, they're really quite different which few people bother to think about which is one of the reasons we've ended up a primarily fascist nation at this point in time.
Ah yes, the Republicrats and Demopublicans. Someone remind me again what the difference is between them?
Oh come on, there are plenty of differences. They have different colored jerseys, different mascots, they tend to prefer different parts of the constitution for their ass wiping needs...
There's a long list of them, too, Democrats and Republicans (to be fair, more GOP than Dems, but they are both well represented).
Huh?
The Republicans have "everybody but Ron Paul" on that list and the Democrats have "everybody but Russ Feingold".
Since there are currently more Democrats in Congress, I fail to see how you end up with that conclusion.
Now if you want to talk about relative levels of slime, then nobody could argue against the fact that the Republicans, since Nixon at least, have been far and away the sleaziest. I mean they took the title of "big government party" away from the Democrats decades ago and their goals and actions are nothing but pure fascism, but in raw numbers who currently need to be excised. the Democrats are in the lead.
Displaying religious symbols does not interfere with a person's religion.
Sure it does. It forces me to pay to promote one of the particularly delusional and murderous religions. The fact that it's in the *courts* of a nation who's primary differentiating principle is that delusional religious nonsense, and ignorant religious hatred have *no place whatsoever* in the laws of a civilized nation, is a direct assault on this nation by the radical extremist nutjobs who despise everything this country stands for.
So, yes, putting some bullshit from the bible (which is lies for fools) in a court room which is intended to provide justice based on reason (the diametric opposite of religion) is absolutely a violation of the constitution. And one that cuts to the very heart of the basis of this nation.
How am I supposed to expect a fair trial in a place with Bible bullshit on the walls. You do know the bible calls for brutally murdering people for a variety of idiotic "crimes", based on whims, right? That's contrary to the purpose of our courts and you should really be able to figure that out for yourself. It is that simple.
Of course, you think your delusional fantasies are real and therefore it's ok to shove them in people's faces in a freaking court of law of all places. If your religion is so delusional and crap, the answer isn't legislating it into places it has no purpose. The answer is the grow up and deal with the fact that like Santa and the Tooth Fairy it was just a pack of lies to scare idiotic children.
Man up, admit you fell for something stupid and move on with your life.
In which case, I am more than happy for you to quote "solvent" in responses back to me - I am not happy for you to quote "bankrupt" because you imply I used that word when I did not. Please stop putting words into my mouth.
You used a word that has the same meaning. You were wrong and you look like a fucking moron and a twat because you do not have a scrap of integrity which is all it would take to man up and admit that you spouted a bunch of idiotic bullshit because you're too fucking stupid to even understand the topic you're babbling incoherently about.
In short, STFU you ignorant ass.
Tell me - why would Apple accept Microsoft's money unless they ***NEEDED*** it? Supposedly, they were deadly enemies. Answer that one.
Because it was a settlement and MS *owed* it to Apple as you've been informed many time, stupid troll.
It is interesting that at the time Republicans argued that Clinton should be held accountable, because letting him off the hook would set a bad precedent and result in future Presidents engaging in lies that could have far more serious consquences. Many people countered these arguments by calling the Republicans hypocrites, which is really just dismissive. It looks like both sides were right to me.
Just to be perfectly clear here, yes, I am in part blaming you, and others like you who downplayed and encouraged tolerance for Clinton's lying, for the current situation we have with Bush. Thank's a lot asshole.
Wow, you're dumb and out of touch with reality.
The bad precedent was set by Ford pardoning Nixon. Since then we've seen massive acts of treason out of every Republican president and a blowjob for Clinton.
It would be laughable, if it weren't so disgusting to hear a Republican douche (redundant, I know) even mention anything related to morality or ethics when their isn't a scrap of either in a single one of you mass murdering fascist scum.
Don't take this as a defense of the Democrats, it's not that they're good. It's just that the Republicans are traitors each and every one of the vile fucking monsters at this point
Your reasoning is sound, but I don't think that's good enough (if we don't look at actual statistics when dealing with law, if we instead go with our guts, we'll eventually do something really, really bad.)
Oh absolutely. I never suggested setting policy based on my thought experiment;-)
It is certainly possible, as I believe you suggested, that the reason sex offenders are targeted is specifically to protect the children.
Oh no, not at all. The reason "sex offenders" are lumped together with pedophiles is to use the "waaaaaa what about the children" excuse to violate the constitution and the rights of the citizens. The purpose isn't protecting anyone.
Regardless, I'm not convinced that a registry of even pedophiles is acceptable. I'd rather see something more constructive, like mandatory counciling. But regardless, more research should be done to find a good solution.
I agree. It is an end run around making a sound policy.
You think questions about sex with a subordinate are unreasonable in a grand jury investigation into rape and/or sexual harassment? That's a "personal matter which a court has no business asking" in that context? Wow.
Has anybody ever made any claims that Monica was forced or pressured into the relationship? No? Then yes, it's entirely irrelevant to the case.
However, assume for the moment that it was in any way relevant and that the entire process wasn't a witch hunt orchestrated for the purpose of finding *anything* no matter how idiotic to use to impeach Clinton in order to make the idea of impeachment ridiculous in the eyes of the American people since they knew that their next term in office would be a constant stream of treasonous actions.
Assume all of that, even though it's utter crap.
Even then, Clinton's lie and Bush's massive campaign of lies are not in any conceivable way even in the same league. That's without even looking at the consequences which make them orders of magnitude less comparable to each other.
It's called perspective. Douchebags like the OP who continually try to claim that they were morally equivalent, are clearly batshit insane and need to be slapped down hard every time they raise their heads out of the scum they choose to live in to spout their idiotic nonsense.
That's funny, I thought both were reprehensible. I guess that goes to show someone like you is willing to do whatever it takes to minimize your own transgressions.
No, all that shows it that you have no sense of perspective. Lying about a personal matter which a court has no business asking is an entirely different thing than intentionally and with malice aforethought lying on a massive scale in order to build support for robbing the American people blind to pay to murder a bunch of innocent people for the purpose of increasing profits for a few companies.
Your inability to understand the vast scale of difference between those things demonstrates you to be utterly lacking in anything even resembling morals, ethics, or even basic sanity.
You may describe the recidivism rate for pedophiles as "high", but for other crimes, it's higher.
That might be true (really, I don't know for sure, but I doubt it), but it's not backed up by your post. Your statistics all involve "sex offenders" which is a massive group. Real actual "pedophiles" are an entirely different class of criminal and grouping them with "sex offenders" serves no possible useful purpose. Now the fact that the vast majority of real kiddy fiddlers are close friends and relatives rather than anonymous internet predators is another critical, yet largely ignored fact, but if you can't keep the weak scared of nonsense they might start thinking.
So rather than look up actual statistics, I'll try a purely reasoned argument and see how that does;-)
"Sex offenders" fall into a huge number of groups.
You have the "victims of idiotic legislation" class that includes 18 year olds with 17 year old girlfriends and the sort, people pissing in alleys when minors with idiotically cowardly douchebag parents walk by, and similar crap.
You have older men going after sub 18 teenagers. This is only defined as a "problem" in modern times and was largely the rule for most of human history. I'm not arguing that there isn't something wrong with this in the modern world, just that it is fundamentally different than them going after a prepubescent girl.
You have "rapists of passion" so to speak which would be something like unrepeating date rapists or the like.
You have real hardcore rape which is generally classified as a crime of violence rather than sex by those who study it, but legally it's a "sex crime".
There are probably quite a few I missed as well.
All of these have one thing in common (assuming all the criminals are male and all the victims are female just to make the language easy. If this assumption invalidates the argument, fine, but I don't think it does). They are crimes against physically mature *women*.
Then you have pedophiles. That is an entirely different thing. Their "thing", what gets them off, is having sex with little *girls*. A 50 year old wanting to fuck a physically mature 14 year old is perfectly justifiable from a purely evolutionary argument. She's young and healthy, of child bearing age, and less likely to have been previously impregnated than an older girl.
Wanting to fuck a 4 year old though is a fundamentally different proposition. The best case argument is that it's evolutionarily neutral because his genes would be better served by having sex with women, and the only way I can see to even get neutrality out of it is that they might "stay together" until she's old enough thereby "ensuring" his patrimony of any offspring. The fact that permanent physical damage could easily occur preventing her from ever reproducing pretty much invalidates any "neutrality" though.
Now, I think that that constitutes a decent defense of the idea that pedophiles are a vastly different class than all the rest of the "sex offenders".
So how does that apply to recidivism?
The 17 year old will be 18 before the guy is out of prison, so assuming it was a legit relationship (and a million other variables admittedly) they can go right back to what they were doing and magically it's no longer a crime.
Find the right hooker and you can simulate rape to your heart's content.
Basically there are substitutes for most or all of the non pedo "sex offenders".
If your thing is fucking that which nature has no purpose in having fucked, then you're left with no substitutions that can address your desires besides another child.
So consider the "recidivism" rate for sex among humans at large. Damn near 100% with about the only exceptions being asexuals and those who can't get laid in a whore house with a fist full of hundred dollar bills and that's even stretching the definition of recidivism pretty far.
So we're talking about an activity that everyone engages in
I really don't think that ISPs are going to "insert" kiddie porn, "illegal" music or movies, or "terrorist" content in your Web page requests
You're almost certainly correct, if by "ISPs" you mean the decision makers of the ISPs, and therefore the official policies thereof.
However, what this does is fundamentally change the way they run their network thereby opening up massive vulnerabilities.
Before they decided to make it their official policy to engage in the mass of unethical behaviors this exhibits, in order to insert goat porn, or the like, into a client's browser a disgruntled employee would haver to jump through a mass of hoops (assuming they ever had any working network monitoring tools).
Now, though, since this fraudulent activity is part of their official corporate policy and therefore necessarily of their infrastructure, all it takes is changing some text which is designed to be easily modified.
That's the fundamental problem with this policy. Creating a method for potentially malicious people to insert unwanted content into the browsers of their own customers *is* the entirety of the policy. I doubt many people think that "goat porn for the masses" is the goal of Rogers, but they are going way out of their way to make sure that doing exactly that is trivial.
I absolutely hope somebody pulls that argument and wins though, because this absolutely creates more than enough reasonable doubt.
"But we didn't put that pic of two year olds fucking on his computer"...
"Oh yeah? You created a process designed for the purpose of manipulating content and creating forgeries of web sites with deliberately falsified content in violation of every standard practice, every commonly sensible idea and every relevant ethical principle. Prove absolutely that each and every one of your employees was entirely uninvolved with this particular case, when you've spent so much time and effort ensuring that it would not only be possible, but trivial."
It's not that Rogers has a plan for gross porn distribution, it's that they've created a means, a method and a process for doing exactly that with few if any possible legitimate uses.
For pete's sake, we were making predictions and the guy calls me troll and an idiot simply because he didn't agree with me!
No, you made many factually inaccurate statements *and* blatant logical fallacies as I demonstrated in great detail. Grow up, be a man, and take responsibility for yourself. Quit being such a lying little bitch.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you proposing their "nasty message" was regarding? Their fascist politics is all they stand for, so what totally foreign thing do you think the message was in reference to?!?
That's absolutely true.
Microsoft would have really liked to have that contract though. Both for the revenue and for the bragging rights.
So it, indeed, is not eating into Microsoft's market share, but it did slow their growth, however slightly.
It is quite obvious that you've never even read the bible if you can make a statement of such audacious falsehood.
The Bible is all about brutally murdering anybody who disagrees. It is all about keeping the rulers in control and making sure the sheep know that the exist to serve. You should actually sit down and read the book before you spout idiotic nonsense like that.
Those are the real messages. The ones you're talking about are the ones men made up to suit their own agenda.
You clearly don't know a damn thing about the history of the religion either, since brutal murder and torture to "spread the faith" and keep the rulers in charge, largely by making up new dogma and declaring their enemies heretics and murdering them is how the canon came to be what it is.
It was only after the age of reason, when sanity started to gain traction that
the churches started giving up their unequaled brutality. It was only in the 1920s that the Catholic Church gave up their official policy of a millenium of torture and murder of heretics. A heretic, of course, is anybody who disagreed with the power wielders.
So all your happy go lucky bullshit is very very new in the entire history of that brutally savage faith.
Spew all the lies you want, history proves you to be a liar.
But I don't think any politician takes orders from their church.
No, not in very recent years although that was the case for many hundreds of years of savage brutality. Noe, they are just in cahoots. The politicians fuck the people and the churches hold them down and tell them it;s god's will.
Money has a much greater influence then any religion does.
Yes, but religions are all about the money. Are you truly *that* fucking dense that you don't know the vast holdings of wealth of the churches and how their policies have been set to ensure their increase? Hell, why do you think the Catholic Church is little more than an organization dedicated to raping children. They wouldn't let priests marry so they would gain all of their inheritance. That's a big part of why it's the career of choice for child rapists. Not only do they get ultimate power, but since the church is far more concerned with maintaining and increasing their wealth and power than they are with the lives of their victims.
Your defense of such unmitigated greed, corruption, and unequalled atrocity says almost everything that really needs to be said about you.
So, will you be a coward, or will you be an American?
Most modern Americans are defined by cowardice and a militant death grip on ignorance, so your question is redundant.
Idiot posts like this that compare having your bags go through an x-ray machine at an airport with slaughtering millions of innocents really annoy me.
Perhaps you should actually read his post again and attempt to understand what he was actually saying.
He was debunking the cowardly excuse of "I'm just a soldier following orders".
That's how the slaughter of millions *starts*.
And it is the regular people just like that who do all of the actual atrocities. Hell look at cops with the drug war and the massive increase in the police state that that demanded. Not one decent human being or citizen could possibly join a police force after that started so we're guaranteed a police force of brutal thugs which is what we have as you would have noticed by now were you at all aware of your surroundings.
As they increase the assinine rules in airports, like the whole liquids thing (There was no plot, it isn't even feasible, but the rules are still there because Bush had to cry wolf again to keep you fools scared so you'd keep their licking boots as you did in this post), then you end up with a job that no decent human would take but you still have plenty of people signing up.
Years ago I was visiting the family of a Chinese friend of mine, and his father somehow got on the topic of the WWII. He had been a refugee as boy in China, and had experienced first hand being bombed and strafed by the Japanese in a refugee column. He was still angry and bitter. When you compare his experience watching friends and family die to your experience at an airport, you demean him, you demean millions and millions of people.
Then perhaps you should stop being the one to ignore the lessons learned with the various totalitariain regimes of the previous century and therefore demeaning your friend's losses?
I mean it is really deeply sickening to watch people like you whine about how things aren't that bad so you should shut up about it while the whole time it is rapidly progressing down that same pathway. It's cowards like yourself who refuse to learn from history and refuse to look around them and apply those lessons that *allow* this to happen.
Stop it.
I certainly hope he doesn't, and I know I won't because we have seen this all before too many fucking times in history. Rather than asking others to please stop talking about reality so you can go back to hiding from it, how about you start acting like an adult and a citizen rather than a childish subject and a tool?
Now of course this is all at someones word, so I have no written proof.
;-)
;-)
I was born on Beale Air Force Base and my dad flew KC-135Qs doing inflight refueling of the SR-71s in Vietnam as well as many other places.
He said more or less the same thing.
So now we have 2 anecdotal stories
Plus I have neat picture of myself sitting on the wing of one when I was a tiny baby
As someone outside of the situation, what would suggest? Seriously, because we seem to have no flippin' idea. None at all. Our elections have become fixed. Our politicians are totally corrupt. They've taken away all our rights and taxed us to death.
The last time this happened, we dumped a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor and told King George to go get fscked. Then we started shooting British soldiers.
It's simple. We *need* to start shooting politicians. All of the other boxes have failed completely. The ammo box is the only one left.
Congratulations! ;-)
You were modded troll for the crime of actually knowing a definition.
That's pretty funny
Well, it's true that while socialism and fascism seem like opposite ends on one particular spectrum, on the other hand, if you compare on a scale of "totalitarianism vs freedom", it turns out that the "left wing" in some countries like the USSR has more in common with the right-wing hard liners in another country.
The article I linked addresses the Nolan chart and similar and points out quite a few major flaws with that method of laying things out.
Take traffic lights, for example. Obviously there are laws making you follow the lights, so that's authoritarianism. Yet they permit our current free ability to travel.
Certainly the extremes of both the left and the right share authoritarianism, but lumping them together like that hides much more than it reveals. Most obviously it hides what they're authoritarian about, against whom, and why.
Yeah, actually, that's bang-on analysis.
Thanks.
You might find this (rather long) article interesting. It goes pretty in depth on the similarities nd differences between the left, the right and their mutual opposition to Liberalism (in the classical sense of the word).
I learned a lot from it.
The idea of a risk-free enterprise sounds more like socialism to me, eh?
No, it's all the way to the other side... fascism.
Since the big wigs get to personally keep the money the government helped them "earn" it comes under the heading of fascism.
Another way to look at it is "socialised costs, privatized profits" just like the private prison industry, private military contractors and the like.
That's the far opposite extreme from socialism and while they share similarities in atrocity, they're really quite different which few people bother to think about which is one of the reasons we've ended up a primarily fascist nation at this point in time.
Ah yes, the Republicrats and Demopublicans. Someone remind me again what the difference is between them?
Oh come on, there are plenty of differences.
They have different colored jerseys, different mascots, they tend to prefer different parts of the constitution for their ass wiping needs...
There's a long list of them, too, Democrats and Republicans (to be fair, more GOP than Dems, but they are both well represented).
Huh?
The Republicans have "everybody but Ron Paul" on that list and the Democrats have "everybody but Russ Feingold".
Since there are currently more Democrats in Congress, I fail to see how you end up with that conclusion.
Now if you want to talk about relative levels of slime, then nobody could argue against the fact that the Republicans, since Nixon at least, have been far and away the sleaziest. I mean they took the title of "big government party" away from the Democrats decades ago and their goals and actions are nothing but pure fascism, but in raw numbers who currently need to be excised. the Democrats are in the lead.
Displaying religious symbols does not interfere with a person's religion.
Sure it does. It forces me to pay to promote one of the particularly delusional and murderous religions.
The fact that it's in the *courts* of a nation who's primary differentiating principle is that delusional religious nonsense, and ignorant religious hatred have *no place whatsoever* in the laws of a civilized nation, is a direct assault on this nation by the radical extremist nutjobs who despise everything this country stands for.
So, yes, putting some bullshit from the bible (which is lies for fools) in a court room which is intended to provide justice based on reason (the diametric opposite of religion) is absolutely a violation of the constitution. And one that cuts to the very heart of the basis of this nation.
How am I supposed to expect a fair trial in a place with Bible bullshit on the walls. You do know the bible calls for brutally murdering people for a variety of idiotic "crimes", based on whims, right? That's contrary to the purpose of our courts and you should really be able to figure that out for yourself. It is that simple.
Of course, you think your delusional fantasies are real and therefore it's ok to shove them in people's faces in a freaking court of law of all places. If your religion is so delusional and crap, the answer isn't legislating it into places it has no purpose. The answer is the grow up and deal with the fact that like Santa and the Tooth Fairy it was just a pack of lies to scare idiotic children.
Man up, admit you fell for something stupid and move on with your life.
In which case, I am more than happy for you to quote "solvent" in responses back to me - I am not happy for you to quote "bankrupt" because you imply I used that word when I did not. Please stop putting words into my mouth.
You used a word that has the same meaning. You were wrong and you look like a fucking moron and a twat because you do not have a scrap of integrity which is all it would take to man up and admit that you spouted a bunch of idiotic bullshit because you're too fucking stupid to even understand the topic you're babbling incoherently about.
In short, STFU you ignorant ass.
Tell me - why would Apple accept Microsoft's money unless they ***NEEDED*** it? Supposedly, they were deadly enemies. Answer that one.
Because it was a settlement and MS *owed* it to Apple as you've been informed many time, stupid troll.
It is interesting that at the time Republicans argued that Clinton should be held accountable, because letting him off the hook would set a bad precedent and result in future Presidents engaging in lies that could have far more serious consquences. Many people countered these arguments by calling the Republicans hypocrites, which is really just dismissive. It looks like both sides were right to me.
Just to be perfectly clear here, yes, I am in part blaming you, and others like you who downplayed and encouraged tolerance for Clinton's lying, for the current situation we have with Bush. Thank's a lot asshole.
Wow, you're dumb and out of touch with reality.
The bad precedent was set by Ford pardoning Nixon. Since then we've seen massive acts of treason out of every Republican president and a blowjob for Clinton.
It would be laughable, if it weren't so disgusting to hear a Republican douche (redundant, I know) even mention anything related to morality or ethics when their isn't a scrap of either in a single one of you mass murdering fascist scum.
Don't take this as a defense of the Democrats, it's not that they're good. It's just that the Republicans are traitors each and every one of the vile fucking monsters at this point
Oh absolutely. I never suggested setting policy based on my thought experiment
It is certainly possible, as I believe you suggested, that the reason sex offenders are targeted is specifically to protect the children.
Oh no, not at all. The reason "sex offenders" are lumped together with pedophiles is to use the "waaaaaa what about the children" excuse to violate the constitution and the rights of the citizens.
The purpose isn't protecting anyone.
Regardless, I'm not convinced that a registry of even pedophiles is acceptable. I'd rather see something more constructive, like mandatory counciling. But regardless, more research should be done to find a good solution.
I agree. It is an end run around making a sound policy.
Has anybody ever made any claims that Monica was forced or pressured into the relationship?
No?
Then yes, it's entirely irrelevant to the case.
However, assume for the moment that it was in any way relevant and that the entire process wasn't a witch hunt orchestrated for the purpose of finding *anything* no matter how idiotic to use to impeach Clinton in order to make the idea of impeachment ridiculous in the eyes of the American people since they knew that their next term in office would be a constant stream of treasonous actions.
Assume all of that, even though it's utter crap.
Even then, Clinton's lie and Bush's massive campaign of lies are not in any conceivable way even in the same league.
That's without even looking at the consequences which make them orders of magnitude less comparable to each other.
It's called perspective. Douchebags like the OP who continually try to claim that they were morally equivalent, are clearly batshit insane and need to be slapped down hard every time they raise their heads out of the scum they choose to live in to spout their idiotic nonsense.
No, all that shows it that you have no sense of perspective. Lying about a personal matter which a court has no business asking is an entirely different thing than intentionally and with malice aforethought lying on a massive scale in order to build support for robbing the American people blind to pay to murder a bunch of innocent people for the purpose of increasing profits for a few companies.
Your inability to understand the vast scale of difference between those things demonstrates you to be utterly lacking in anything even resembling morals, ethics, or even basic sanity.
You may describe the recidivism rate for pedophiles as "high", but for other crimes, it's higher.
That might be true (really, I don't know for sure, but I doubt it), but it's not backed up by your post. Your statistics all involve "sex offenders" which is a massive group. Real actual "pedophiles" are an entirely different class of criminal and grouping them with "sex offenders" serves no possible useful purpose.
Now the fact that the vast majority of real kiddy fiddlers are close friends and relatives rather than anonymous internet predators is another critical, yet largely ignored fact, but if you can't keep the weak scared of nonsense they might start thinking.
So rather than look up actual statistics, I'll try a purely reasoned argument and see how that does
"Sex offenders" fall into a huge number of groups.
You have the "victims of idiotic legislation" class that includes 18 year olds with 17 year old girlfriends and the sort, people pissing in alleys when minors with idiotically cowardly douchebag parents walk by, and similar crap.
You have older men going after sub 18 teenagers. This is only defined as a "problem" in modern times and was largely the rule for most of human history. I'm not arguing that there isn't something wrong with this in the modern world, just that it is fundamentally different than them going after a prepubescent girl.
You have "rapists of passion" so to speak which would be something like unrepeating date rapists or the like.
You have real hardcore rape which is generally classified as a crime of violence rather than sex by those who study it, but legally it's a "sex crime".
There are probably quite a few I missed as well.
All of these have one thing in common (assuming all the criminals are male and all the victims are female just to make the language easy. If this assumption invalidates the argument, fine, but I don't think it does). They are crimes against physically mature *women*.
Then you have pedophiles.
That is an entirely different thing. Their "thing", what gets them off, is having sex with little *girls*.
A 50 year old wanting to fuck a physically mature 14 year old is perfectly justifiable from a purely evolutionary argument. She's young and healthy, of child bearing age, and less likely to have been previously impregnated than an older girl.
Wanting to fuck a 4 year old though is a fundamentally different proposition. The best case argument is that it's evolutionarily neutral because his genes would be better served by having sex with women, and the only way I can see to even get neutrality out of it is that they might "stay together" until she's old enough thereby "ensuring" his patrimony of any offspring. The fact that permanent physical damage could easily occur preventing her from ever reproducing pretty much invalidates any "neutrality" though.
Now, I think that that constitutes a decent defense of the idea that pedophiles are a vastly different class than all the rest of the "sex offenders".
So how does that apply to recidivism?
The 17 year old will be 18 before the guy is out of prison, so assuming it was a legit relationship (and a million other variables admittedly) they can go right back to what they were doing and magically it's no longer a crime.
Find the right hooker and you can simulate rape to your heart's content.
Basically there are substitutes for most or all of the non pedo "sex offenders".
If your thing is fucking that which nature has no purpose in having fucked, then you're left with no substitutions that can address your desires besides another child.
So consider the "recidivism" rate for sex among humans at large. Damn near 100% with about the only exceptions being asexuals and those who can't get laid in a whore house with a fist full of hundred dollar bills and that's even stretching the definition of recidivism pretty far.
So we're talking about an activity that everyone engages in
I really don't think that ISPs are going to "insert" kiddie porn, "illegal" music or movies, or "terrorist" content in your Web page requests
You're almost certainly correct, if by "ISPs" you mean the decision makers of the ISPs, and therefore the official policies thereof.
However, what this does is fundamentally change the way they run their network thereby opening up massive vulnerabilities.
Before they decided to make it their official policy to engage in the mass of unethical behaviors this exhibits, in order to insert goat porn, or the like, into a client's browser a disgruntled employee would haver to jump through a mass of hoops (assuming they ever had any working network monitoring tools).
Now, though, since this fraudulent activity is part of their official corporate policy and therefore necessarily of their infrastructure, all it takes is changing some text which is designed to be easily modified.
That's the fundamental problem with this policy. Creating a method for potentially malicious people to insert unwanted content into the browsers of their own customers *is* the entirety of the policy.
I doubt many people think that "goat porn for the masses" is the goal of Rogers, but they are going way out of their way to make sure that doing exactly that is trivial.
I absolutely hope somebody pulls that argument and wins though, because this absolutely creates more than enough reasonable doubt.
"But we didn't put that pic of two year olds fucking on his computer"...
"Oh yeah? You created a process designed for the purpose of manipulating content and creating forgeries of web sites with deliberately falsified content in violation of every standard practice, every commonly sensible idea and every relevant ethical principle. Prove absolutely that each and every one of your employees was entirely uninvolved with this particular case, when you've spent so much time and effort ensuring that it would not only be possible, but trivial."
It's not that Rogers has a plan for gross porn distribution, it's that they've created a means, a method and a process for doing exactly that with few if any possible legitimate uses.
Just because I say G'day at the top of my emails doesn't make my opinion that Windows/Microsoft sux any less valid.
Ahh, but it calls all of your opinions into question. I mean if you're saying G'day when it's really G'night, then how can you be trusted?!?
I would grab a wood maul and just go to town on the disc, and do my best to savor the thought of MS technicians staring on in horror.
You misspelled "longing".
It appears that we're in agreement then. It would be nice to actually live in a free USA.
;-)
Few things suck more than being this unhappy about agreeing with somebody
For pete's sake, we were making predictions and the guy calls me troll and an idiot simply because he didn't agree with me!
No, you made many factually inaccurate statements *and* blatant logical fallacies as I demonstrated in great detail. Grow up, be a man, and take responsibility for yourself. Quit being such a lying little bitch.