Blah blah blah, I don't like that my guy doesn't have a chance, so I'm going to justify him cheating. Even though I'd be absolutely pissed if someone else did it to him
So even though the people who elected those delegates did so with the intention of them nominating Romney, they should go against those people's wishes and nominate the guy you like.
And so you would encourage these "uncommitted" delegates to go against the will of those that elected them, and vote for someone who clearly was not the people's choice?
How would you feel if Paul and Obama were against each other in the general election, Paul won the majority of the members of the Electoral College, but they defected and voted for Obama?
Well, with one, the Telco can control exactly what you can and cannot do online. With the other, they still have to convince a judge that the one site needs to be blocked. The second one has a level of judicial review and due process. The first one does not.
Religious nutjobs as such don't, but they do heavily overlap with the anti-regulation faction of conservative, who are involved.
To be pedantic, they aren't "anti-regulation". They are very much in favor of regulation. Just for things they like. In the US, for example, they claim to be for "smaller government", yet invite the government into the bedroom, and want to regulate who can marry whom.
You know, if you're going to bash hate crime laws, it might do you well to actually educate yourself on how they are used. A crime committed by someone of Race A against someone of Race B is NOT automatically a hate crime. Courts take things like "motive" and "intent" into account. If Guy A mugs Guy B, and it goes wrong and Guy A kills Guy B, that is not a hate crime. However, If Guy A lynches Guy B in the public park, and hangs a sign around his neck saying "Die [Insert appropriate racial slur here]!" or something, then that IS a hate crime, because the purpose of the crime was not just to kill Guy B, but to intimidate and send a message to everyone else of Guy B's race.
Actually, we had that, a loooooooong, loooooooong time ago. Then the Bush FCC decided that it was stupid, and so the line owning telcos were allowed to jack line rental rates up to astronomical levels. Needless to say, that put an end to that.
The thing is, your argument completely falls apart when you look at the speeds in urban areas of the US, and they are still extremely shitty compared to their urban areas.
Only in an idiotic anarcho-capitalist state would limiting someone's access to the internet, and interfering with their traffic be considered a "business model".
If you asked one of the questions with the intention of gaining access to that protected information, you would have to prove that you did not base your decision on that information. Which is why most companies simply tell their interviewers not to ask those questions.
Slashdot Mirror
Gold has value (as a currency) because it has actual utility
It's utility is as a conductor. And the value of that is nowhere near the price of gold today. So that can't be it.
By "winning", you mean subverting the will of the voters?
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
Blah blah blah, I don't like that my guy doesn't have a chance, so I'm going to justify him cheating. Even though I'd be absolutely pissed if someone else did it to him
That is exactly what your post says.
Because we've heard these rumors before, and recognize that there is no merit to them?
Take your retarded ass conspiracy theories and shove them back into your tinfoil hat. Nothing you've said is remotely accurate.
The same retarded rumors were spread prior to the 2004 and 2008 elections. Nothing happened.
So you agree that the will of the people shouldn't count for anything, then?
So even though the people who elected those delegates did so with the intention of them nominating Romney, they should go against those people's wishes and nominate the guy you like.
Great picture of democracy you've got there.
And so you would encourage these "uncommitted" delegates to go against the will of those that elected them, and vote for someone who clearly was not the people's choice?
How would you feel if Paul and Obama were against each other in the general election, Paul won the majority of the members of the Electoral College, but they defected and voted for Obama?
This "delegate strategy" is absurdly retarded.
Republicans aren't for smaller government either. Unless you mean they're for a government so small it can fit in your bedroom.
The US is a police state.
Go spend some time in North Korea, or any other actual police state before you say that.
Well, in 2000, it would have meant that we'd probably have Gore and not Bush.
Why does gold have value, though? For the exact same reason the US Dollar, or any other currency has value. Because we say it does.
Wow, you're soooooo much more enlightened than us!
Wow, you need to go back to school and learn you some history.
Well, with one, the Telco can control exactly what you can and cannot do online. With the other, they still have to convince a judge that the one site needs to be blocked. The second one has a level of judicial review and due process. The first one does not.
Religious nutjobs as such don't, but they do heavily overlap with the anti-regulation faction of conservative, who are involved.
To be pedantic, they aren't "anti-regulation". They are very much in favor of regulation. Just for things they like. In the US, for example, they claim to be for "smaller government", yet invite the government into the bedroom, and want to regulate who can marry whom.
You know, if you're going to bash hate crime laws, it might do you well to actually educate yourself on how they are used. A crime committed by someone of Race A against someone of Race B is NOT automatically a hate crime. Courts take things like "motive" and "intent" into account. If Guy A mugs Guy B, and it goes wrong and Guy A kills Guy B, that is not a hate crime. However, If Guy A lynches Guy B in the public park, and hangs a sign around his neck saying "Die [Insert appropriate racial slur here]!" or something, then that IS a hate crime, because the purpose of the crime was not just to kill Guy B, but to intimidate and send a message to everyone else of Guy B's race.
Actually, we had that, a loooooooong, loooooooong time ago. Then the Bush FCC decided that it was stupid, and so the line owning telcos were allowed to jack line rental rates up to astronomical levels. Needless to say, that put an end to that.
The thing is, your argument completely falls apart when you look at the speeds in urban areas of the US, and they are still extremely shitty compared to their urban areas.
Nothing of what you said has made the argument that privatizing the infrastructure is a good thing. In fact, it makes it seem like a bad thing.
Only in an idiotic anarcho-capitalist state would limiting someone's access to the internet, and interfering with their traffic be considered a "business model".
If you asked one of the questions with the intention of gaining access to that protected information, you would have to prove that you did not base your decision on that information. Which is why most companies simply tell their interviewers not to ask those questions.
A paycheck is not a requirement to survive.
In every practical sense of the word, yes it is. This renders the entirety of your post moot.
what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not able to give consent for such things.