Well there's two basic types of loans any bank will give out. There's the sort where you sit down with an officer and talk about your credit rating and equity and so forth. And then there's the type where you sit down with an officer and talk about the calibre of gun you have under your shirt.
however, it seems that if a person is doing a great job for their state, why shouldn't the people be able to keep him in office?
I, too, agree with all four of his points, but I've been playing around with something like quasi-term limits: If the limit is, say, two consecutive terms in office, then on the 'third-term' ballot, you will be listed. But you need a certain percentage of the vote to remain in office. This percentage would increase marginally every term after the third that you are in office.
Also on the ballot (where applicable), people would be able to vote for two cantidates: The 'third-term' incumbant (if they wish), and the person they would like to see in the office if the incumbant does not reach the percentage threshold. With this system people can, in effect, say "We like what you are doing, so keep up the good work, but you better keep doing a great job up there or you're out," while not 'throwing away' their vote, as people tend to think they are doing when not voting for the incumbant.
b) needs to get dirty and start an ad campaign showing what Hatch is doing wrong to this country (not that difficult - just dig up some of his voting record)
It is sad to me that trying to educate voters about someone they could be voting for using facts is now considered 'dirty'. Have we fallen so far that baseless, mindless mudslinging is now considered Normal Politics?
Now that I think about it... Looking at history even as far back as the founding fathers, 'fallen so far' might not be accurate.
And attributed, more often than not, to laziness and apathy. It's like the RIAA/MPAA: when CD/Movie ticket sales drop, it's always because of piracy, not because nobody wants to listen to your music or watch your movies. Similarly, when voter turnout is low, it's always portrayed to be a sign of the laziness of the American people, not the fact that a lot of people are disgusted with both main-stream parties, don't want to have to choose the 'lesser of two evils', so just don't vote.
It's the same every election. You'll go on CNN or FOX and see "So And So won the election, but voter turnout was the lowest it's been in years!", then they'll cut to some man-on-the-street shtick where they'll have a reporter on the streets of the Bronx or Cleaveland looking for tools who don't know anything about anything, then propping them up as the mainstream viewpoint:
"Hey, what man? Sorry, I just woke up, killer party last night, dude. Man, I did sooo many hits on that bong -- Huh? Election? There was an election yesterday? Nah, I didn't go. Man, weren't you listening? Dave had some people over; he got some choice weed, dude..."
The bad news is now you guys have to listen to dinosaurs like me who cut their teeth coding in 6502 assembly ramble on about "well, sonny, back in MY day..."
Just imagine the future: "Well, sonny, back in MY day we coded in VB6 and we didn't complain a whit!"
I think it's reasonable to call a lawyer's blog a public communication made by that lawyer about that lawyer.
Only if it's a personal blog. Personally, I think this is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong (and IANAL), but this new overhaul of this bar's policies would seem to imply that blogs previously weren't considered advertising. So you could look on a Lawyer's or Firm's blog, see a bunch of info that may or may not be actually valid (ie. A blog post saying "We will win every case!", as a rediculous example), hire them, then have your case lost. Since they don't have any TV ads (hypothetically), you couldn't, say, sue them for false advertising, since blogs weren't considered a form of advertising.
That aside, though, this reeks more of the NY bar just wanting some money. If this actually happens, we'll have to see how it pans out.
...which, anecdotally, is happening more often....
So in other words, the slashbots are getting all worked up over FUD and hearsay. What else is new? Show me documented cases of this and maybe you'll have a point.
Then do yourself a favour if you're such a moderate, sensible Muslim - do something, or at least pretend to do something about the crazies who give you a bad name. Then we'll talk.
Then do yourself a favour if you're such a moderate, sensible white person - do something, or at least pretend to do something about the crazies who give you a bad name. Then we'll talk.
Then do yourself a favour if you're such a moderate, sensible Republican - do something, or at least pretend to do something about the crazies who give you a bad name. Then we'll talk.
Why is it that Christianity gets singled out? I myself have personally protested Landover Baptist's extreme (and often cannonically incorrect) views. Can we talk now? I'm not sure what else you want me, as a normal, everyday Christian person to do. As long as they're in America, they have as much right to say that "God hates queers" as the KKK does to say "We hate niggers" or the talk radioheads have to say "Democratz = teh evilz" or any other religion or ideology has to preach anything else under the law.
I don't have to like that the Crusades killed millions for the sake of misguided politics under the guise of religion. Nor do I have to like that Landover Baptist protests the funerals of murdered Amish schoolgirls. But neither of them has anything to do with me, any more than GW Bush's foriegn policy has to do with any average Joe American.
I honestly don't see where the blanket Christian hatred comes from, while people preach at us to not judge Muslims (as an example) by the actions of a relatively few radical minority.
I find it sad that dogmatic aethists will never let a chance to bash Christianity pass them by, then turn right around and preach open-mindedness and tolerance.
Slashdot Mirror
Well there's two basic types of loans any bank will give out. There's the sort where you sit down with an officer and talk about your credit rating and equity and so forth. And then there's the type where you sit down with an officer and talk about the calibre of gun you have under your shirt.
If by "throw eggs at houses" you mean "shoot up their school", then yeah.
I, too, agree with all four of his points, but I've been playing around with something like quasi-term limits: If the limit is, say, two consecutive terms in office, then on the 'third-term' ballot, you will be listed. But you need a certain percentage of the vote to remain in office. This percentage would increase marginally every term after the third that you are in office.
Also on the ballot (where applicable), people would be able to vote for two cantidates: The 'third-term' incumbant (if they wish), and the person they would like to see in the office if the incumbant does not reach the percentage threshold. With this system people can, in effect, say "We like what you are doing, so keep up the good work, but you better keep doing a great job up there or you're out," while not 'throwing away' their vote, as people tend to think they are doing when not voting for the incumbant.
It is sad to me that trying to educate voters about someone they could be voting for using facts is now considered 'dirty'. Have we fallen so far that baseless, mindless mudslinging is now considered Normal Politics?
Now that I think about it... Looking at history even as far back as the founding fathers, 'fallen so far' might not be accurate.
Wait, what? You mean that commercial I saw was wrong?
Well, obviously they think all the other cantidates are dispbbbbpbickable.
And attributed, more often than not, to laziness and apathy. It's like the RIAA/MPAA: when CD/Movie ticket sales drop, it's always because of piracy, not because nobody wants to listen to your music or watch your movies. Similarly, when voter turnout is low, it's always portrayed to be a sign of the laziness of the American people, not the fact that a lot of people are disgusted with both main-stream parties, don't want to have to choose the 'lesser of two evils', so just don't vote.
It's the same every election. You'll go on CNN or FOX and see "So And So won the election, but voter turnout was the lowest it's been in years!", then they'll cut to some man-on-the-street shtick where they'll have a reporter on the streets of the Bronx or Cleaveland looking for tools who don't know anything about anything, then propping them up as the mainstream viewpoint:
"Hey, what man? Sorry, I just woke up, killer party last night, dude. Man, I did sooo many hits on that bong -- Huh? Election? There was an election yesterday? Nah, I didn't go. Man, weren't you listening? Dave had some people over; he got some choice weed, dude..."
Flamebait? Heaven forbid someone advise against theft.
Just imagine the future: "Well, sonny, back in MY day we coded in VB6 and we didn't complain a whit!"
Only if it's a personal blog. Personally, I think this is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong (and IANAL), but this new overhaul of this bar's policies would seem to imply that blogs previously weren't considered advertising. So you could look on a Lawyer's or Firm's blog, see a bunch of info that may or may not be actually valid (ie. A blog post saying "We will win every case!", as a rediculous example), hire them, then have your case lost. Since they don't have any TV ads (hypothetically), you couldn't, say, sue them for false advertising, since blogs weren't considered a form of advertising.
That aside, though, this reeks more of the NY bar just wanting some money. If this actually happens, we'll have to see how it pans out.
How is it truth? Because a lot of people said it? A lot of people said the Crusades were a great idea, too.
DON'T DATE ROBOTS.
It's getting so I don't want to travel to Europe anymore. They're getting waay too uptight.
So in other words, the slashbots are getting all worked up over FUD and hearsay. What else is new? Show me documented cases of this and maybe you'll have a point.
Better than the GP's sig. I guess he is expecting to get a real vote on that subject on a site called retardicans.com.
Then again, I've never met a partisan blogger who was really interested in the truth.
Wow. You're right.
/.
Cold medicine + midterms = I shouldn't post on
I could say the same about pretty much anything:
Then do yourself a favour if you're such a moderate, sensible Muslim - do something, or at least pretend to do something about the crazies who give you a bad name. Then we'll talk.
Then do yourself a favour if you're such a moderate, sensible white person - do something, or at least pretend to do something about the crazies who give you a bad name. Then we'll talk.
Then do yourself a favour if you're such a moderate, sensible Republican - do something, or at least pretend to do something about the crazies who give you a bad name. Then we'll talk.
Why is it that Christianity gets singled out? I myself have personally protested Landover Baptist's extreme (and often cannonically incorrect) views. Can we talk now? I'm not sure what else you want me, as a normal, everyday Christian person to do. As long as they're in America, they have as much right to say that "God hates queers" as the KKK does to say "We hate niggers" or the talk radioheads have to say "Democratz = teh evilz" or any other religion or ideology has to preach anything else under the law.
I don't have to like that the Crusades killed millions for the sake of misguided politics under the guise of religion. Nor do I have to like that Landover Baptist protests the funerals of murdered Amish schoolgirls. But neither of them has anything to do with me, any more than GW Bush's foriegn policy has to do with any average Joe American.
I honestly don't see where the blanket Christian hatred comes from, while people preach at us to not judge Muslims (as an example) by the actions of a relatively few radical minority.
I fail to see who would be making a profit in that scenario.
In other words, that's a nice thought... But it's never going to happen.
I find it sad that dogmatic aethists will never let a chance to bash Christianity pass them by, then turn right around and preach open-mindedness and tolerance.
I don't think any of those words have anything to do with Scientology.
Yeah, the part about China being a tyranical Communist dictatorship.
1. Annoying people with shitty, cheezy photos of something that you (incorrectly) thought they would find amusing
2. Industrial Espionage
3. Voyeurism
That's a long time. We should have trancended into pure energy beings by then, or at least superintelligent shades of the colour blue.
Most people are not acquainted with the cows/chickens/fish/etc that they eat.
On the other hand, a lot of people are very sympathetic to and protective of animals that they do know, for example pet cats and dogs.
Perhaps the GP was a little too general, but he had a valid point.
I agree. I'd really hate to run into someone as idiotic as you while I'm trying to enjoy my meal there.