No, no, no, no. Creationists know that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, so nothing can be older than that. Carbon dating is just a myth made up by those damn atheists! ~
There is no such thing as a charity serving one person. One person asking for charity is called a "panhandler".
If they are truly in need, they should "bother with setting up that elaborate thing". Sometimes you have to do things that are a little work to receive a payoff. Just expecting a handout and for everyone to believe your need is legitimate without wanting to verify that fact is highly dubious.
Yeah, it is pretty hard to check the Better Business Bureau website. It could take all of a minute or two, which is less time than it would take you to write out a check and send it off to a charity. (But I know you don't want to be late to your doucehbag lessons, so run along AC.) Also, don't pretend you donate to charity, because everyone knows you really don't.
If you have zero ability to determine whether or not a charity is authentic or not, you should definitely NOT be giving any money to charities. So I think "idiots" is a fair term. It is admirable that they want to help, but giving money to fake charities doesn't help the actual victims. If someone believes in the absolute goodwill of all mankind, sooner or later they too will be the victim of someone taking advantage of that fact. Besides, a real charity should have no problem being asked to verify it's authenticity.
Yeah, I hate the mad rush to register everybody to vote. Everyone shouldn't vote. Everyone who knows something about the politicians themselves and politics in general should vote. The problem is - who gets to make the call? We don't want draconian "literacy tests" to prevent certain people from voting, yet we don't want uninformed lunkheads just picking random names either. To me, 50% seems about right.
Ok, we all get you don't like Scalia. I am not a big fan of his either, and I don't get a rat's ass what YOU assume about ME. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion then, besides the fact you don't like him and think he is a fascist?
So what. Your point is? Do you judge everybody by their father's actions? Did you know that Judge Scalia is only one out of the nine judges in the Supreme Court of the United States? Ever hear of a majority opinion? It is what is required for a decision by the court.
Guess you missed that one in H.S. government class, huh?
Good thing you are not a judge. The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your interpretation also. They decided that the 2nd ammendment does grant the individual (not just the militia) the right to keep and bear arms. But don't take my word for it, I could be a big liar. Instead, read it yourself here.
""Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people." The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"--those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people."
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.""
Isn't that kind of like saying Radiohead is an "indie" band seeing they put out their last album themselves, and didn't use any of the big music companies? While technically true, it doesn't fit the definition most people would think of when thinking of "indie".
Boy, it is very obvious that YANAL. Say you have shareholders in a company that makes no decisions about how the company is run. Now say one executive in the corporation does something illegal without the shareholders knowledge or permission. You want to punish the shareholders for the actions of someone else when the shareholders have absolutely zero to do with the action? That is about the craziest interpretation of the law I have ever heard.
The RIAA are like terrorists - a terrorist's goal is not to blow things up or kill people, it is to make people afraid. If the RIAA have made people afraid to share their music online, or even to make fair use backups of legally purchased music, then they are winning no matter how much money they are taking in or paying out.
But if the media is so liberal, why would they have to? I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
And I'm not sure if you consider Fox a "major network", but I am having a hard time figuring out who the "fawning sychophants"(sic) are on that network. Any help? Besides, everybody knows that the conservatives practically OWN talk radio. Doesn't that count for something? It is a form of media.
If it pisses you off so badly, why visit there? You do have a choice of where you point your browser you know. If you don't like the content, don't read it. Or better yet, put up your own content with opposing views. There - "balance" problem solved!
I still think that the FASA produced Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis is one of the coolest games ever made. I still have my old Genesis console and every once and a while I pull it out just to play Shadowrun. I also was one of the enlightened ones, err, I mean suckers who bought the CD and 32X units. They actually were pretty cool for their time, it's just too bad that the support wasn't there and more games didn't come out for them.
Re:Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn for Sega
on
The Evolution of Sega
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"Breakfast, shmreakfast. Look at the score, for Christ's sake. It's only the second period and I'm up 12 to 2. Breakfasts come and go, Renee, but Hartford, "the Whale," they only beat Vancouver once, maybe twice in a lifetime."
"how the fuck do you "accidentally" spend 1000 goddamn dollars?"
Probably the same way this guy "accidentally" spent $241,000 in one night at a strip club. Well in his defense, he did also have 3 guests along, so really it was only about $52,500 per person.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no, no. Creationists know that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, so nothing can be older than that. Carbon dating is just a myth made up by those damn atheists! ~
Sorry, unable to cite. I somehow got "genetic material" all over my keyboard and now I can't type.
There is no such thing as a charity serving one person. One person asking for charity is called a "panhandler".
If they are truly in need, they should "bother with setting up that elaborate thing". Sometimes you have to do things that are a little work to receive a payoff. Just expecting a handout and for everyone to believe your need is legitimate without wanting to verify that fact is highly dubious.
Yeah, it is pretty hard to check the Better Business Bureau website. It could take all of a minute or two, which is less time than it would take you to write out a check and send it off to a charity. (But I know you don't want to be late to your doucehbag lessons, so run along AC.) Also, don't pretend you donate to charity, because everyone knows you really don't.
If you have zero ability to determine whether or not a charity is authentic or not, you should definitely NOT be giving any money to charities. So I think "idiots" is a fair term. It is admirable that they want to help, but giving money to fake charities doesn't help the actual victims. If someone believes in the absolute goodwill of all mankind, sooner or later they too will be the victim of someone taking advantage of that fact. Besides, a real charity should have no problem being asked to verify it's authenticity.
Yeah, I hate the mad rush to register everybody to vote. Everyone shouldn't vote. Everyone who knows something about the politicians themselves and politics in general should vote. The problem is - who gets to make the call? We don't want draconian "literacy tests" to prevent certain people from voting, yet we don't want uninformed lunkheads just picking random names either. To me, 50% seems about right.
presidential elections are bolded
National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-2006
Turnout of voting-age population (percent)
2006 43.6%
2004 55.3
2002 37.0
2000 51.3
1998 36.4
1996 49.1
1994 38.8
1992 55.1
1990 36.5
1988 50.1
1986 36.4
1984 53.1
1982 39.8
1980 52.6
1978 37.2
1976 53.6
1974 38.2
1972 55.2
1970 46.6
1968 60.8
1966 48.4
1964 61.9
1962 47.3
1960 63.1
Ok, we all get you don't like Scalia. I am not a big fan of his either, and I don't get a rat's ass what YOU assume about ME. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion then, besides the fact you don't like him and think he is a fascist?
So what. Your point is? Do you judge everybody by their father's actions? Did you know that Judge Scalia is only one out of the nine judges in the Supreme Court of the United States? Ever hear of a majority opinion? It is what is required for a decision by the court.
Guess you missed that one in H.S. government class, huh?
Good thing you are not a judge. The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your interpretation also. They decided that the 2nd ammendment does grant the individual (not just the militia) the right to keep and bear arms. But don't take my word for it, I could be a big liar. Instead, read it yourself here.
""Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people." The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"--those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people."
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.""
Isn't that kind of like saying Radiohead is an "indie" band seeing they put out their last album themselves, and didn't use any of the big music companies? While technically true, it doesn't fit the definition most people would think of when thinking of "indie".
My number - sure. It is 69.
Boy, it is very obvious that YANAL. Say you have shareholders in a company that makes no decisions about how the company is run. Now say one executive in the corporation does something illegal without the shareholders knowledge or permission. You want to punish the shareholders for the actions of someone else when the shareholders have absolutely zero to do with the action? That is about the craziest interpretation of the law I have ever heard.
The Graduate
The RIAA are like terrorists - a terrorist's goal is not to blow things up or kill people, it is to make people afraid. If the RIAA have made people afraid to share their music online, or even to make fair use backups of legally purchased music, then they are winning no matter how much money they are taking in or paying out.
Typical expected response. No answers to the actual questions, just complaints. Nobody is suppressing your speech here but yourself.
But if the media is so liberal, why would they have to? I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
And I'm not sure if you consider Fox a "major network", but I am having a hard time figuring out who the "fawning sychophants"(sic) are on that network. Any help? Besides, everybody knows that the conservatives practically OWN talk radio. Doesn't that count for something? It is a form of media.
If it pisses you off so badly, why visit there? You do have a choice of where you point your browser you know. If you don't like the content, don't read it. Or better yet, put up your own content with opposing views. There - "balance" problem solved!
I still think that the FASA produced Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis is one of the coolest games ever made. I still have my old Genesis console and every once and a while I pull it out just to play Shadowrun. I also was one of the enlightened ones, err, I mean suckers who bought the CD and 32X units. They actually were pretty cool for their time, it's just too bad that the support wasn't there and more games didn't come out for them.
"Breakfast, shmreakfast. Look at the score, for Christ's sake. It's only the second period and I'm up 12 to 2. Breakfasts come and go, Renee, but Hartford, "the Whale," they only beat Vancouver once, maybe twice in a lifetime."
"I'm fairly sure that a crime syndicate is NOT democratically managed..."
Sure they are. Every dollar gets one vote...
Good lawyers never ask their clients if they are guilty or not.
I thought they did it for the cake.
"how the fuck do you "accidentally" spend 1000 goddamn dollars?"
Probably the same way this guy "accidentally" spent $241,000 in one night at a strip club. Well in his defense, he did also have 3 guests along, so really it was only about $52,500 per person.
No, just people like you who only signed up just today to read my delightful posts! Thanks for your support!