Good old Slashdotters. They consider airport body scans to be an intolerable abridgment of privacy, yet they see no problem whatsoever with publishing private diplomatic communications because "information wants to be free".
Personal Privacy != Government Secrecy
A lot of these "I want to live forever" statements lack wisdom which usually comes with aging, at some point.
Please explain to me what exactly aging can teach you. I'd say wisdom comes with experience, not aging. Aging in fact destroys what gives you wisdom(your brain).
Amazon has centers around the U.S. because they need to be able to ship something to you quickly no matter where in the U.S. you are.
Traditional stores can easily have product in just one warehouse, possibly even overseas, because deliveries to stores is more regular and far simpler.
Not really. Every major retail chain has regional distribution centers about the size of Amazon's and about just as many(if not more). Just a couple of examples of their competitors:
Why go through every possible event no matter how improbable? Are we going to reduce this conversation to conspiracy theories? If we are, I'd like to throw Antarctic penguins into the ball game. Think about it, no one would suspect them. What exactly do they do every winter when they huddle en mass in the middle of an iceberg for 2 months? Perhaps shielding a laptop and satellite link under the guise of a ridiculous mating ritual?
Highly improbable. Dude, they don't even have thumbs! How are they supposed to carry all that equipment?
How else do you get cat urine without litter or newspaper in it?
A harness, a bowl, and some time?
OK, Christine's a doof, but that's worse than Frank? Or worse than any of the other sex/bribery scandals R or Ds have been in?
Yes, for fuck's sake, yes! Who honestly gives a shit about sex scandals? I'd rather a totally gay man-whore in office any day than someone too stupid to understand a piece of legislation.
What I think is missed in both the smug, "Daily Show"-type dismissal of the Tea Party & third party movement this cycle and the attacks from both parties is that *despite* the negative publicity and outright hostility shown to these candidates (and their own foot-in-mouth syndrome), people are so annoyed at the traditional parties they are willing to vote for them anyway.
And the 'Tea Party' is not a political party. All of this group's successful candidates are Republicans. O'Donnell is a Republican, don't forget that. She is part of this system you are griping about here. I agree with the intent of your post, but everything you're using to back up your point is unrelated.
Certainly by not linking to a politically biased blog with known credibility issues.
Could you cite this? FactCheck.org is pretty well respected in its field.
As Heinlein pointed out (correctly IMHO), voting without responsibility for the results is sheer madness. If you're not intelligent enough to understand why you're voting, what and who you're voting for, and accept and shoulder the consequences of your decisions, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's like driving: bad decisions can lead to bad consequences for a LOT of people. But in voting the consequences are delayed long enough that people don't make the logical connection.
And who gets to decide these qualifications?
Having some ignorant folk vote is much better and conducive to democracy than taking the people's power away from a group using some arbitrary qualifications. If you're not aware how history has totally proven you wrong, please read up on the old literacy tests.
No, it's not a good analogy. We can ramp up nuclear any time we choose.
And we can ramp up oil any time we choose. If you're going to ignore the fiscal and political implications of ramping up nuclear plant construction, I can just as easily ignore the fiscal implications of ramping up oil production.
And why would you ignore that? It's a big part of economics.
Your argument is a bit ill thought out and I'm not sure why you'd bother arguing it. "We could -technically- beat that previous peak, but there is no way in hell it will actually happen due to market forces." I don't see the point in that argument.
Agreed. I grew up 40 minutes outside of a major city, and while in high school the only things to do were drive around aimlessly, waste money on gas, waste money on booze, and talk about how crappy life was. I left the area when I was 19, and I'm currently writing this from my 12th story apartment in the loud, bright, and unpredictable Center City Philadelphia, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I grew up 2 minutes outside of West Philly and while in high school the only things to do were drive around aimlessly, waste money on gas, waste money on booze, and talk about how crappy life was. I left the area 4 years ago and I'm currently writing this from my log office in the quiet woods in Montana, 27 miles away from the nearest town. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
To each his own.
If what you're saying were true, a state like South Dakota (not even a million people - quite a few less, in fact) or North Dakota (400k?), where I have personally seen drunk Sheriffs, would be close to the top of the list for these things, instead of the bottom
A drunk sherrif was probably the funniest thing I've seen since moving out to small-town Montana. And I can atleast vouch for MT and say the drug of choice here, by far, is alcohol. Meth is a so-so problem but pales in comparison to the level of drunk this state is(not that I'm complaining).
"clean water and untainted women are NOT its strong suit."
AVAILABLE women ARE it's strong suit. If you have a decent job and your own teeth, it's a sexual amusement part.
Enjoy the rides, but don't buy one to own.
Depends on where you are. I'm in a town of ~900 and the few girls that are left are taken. Most of the girls grown up and split town for school and/or access to jobs other than ranching or fry cook.
But I shouldn't be restricted from buying some beer on my one day off each week just because a bunch of fundamentalist shitheads think I should be wasting my morning praying to their sun god.
There's another reason. If people buy alcohol on Sunday, that may increase the chance that a lot of people get a hangover on Monday and skip work, or performance plummets, causing economic catastrophe. And unions losing negotiating power, since their people aren't working anyways.
Banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday is not about religion, it's about economic stimulus, and protecting the unions!
Oh yes, because it is so hard to plan on buying your beer on Saturday for football on Sunday. I've lived in PA and I've run into these stupid laws. It has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that Sunday is the Christian sabbath.
Oh, and bars are still open on Sunday which makes it even more retarded. But that's another discussion.
The Bush/Cheney campaign wasn't the one that tried to cherry pick which districts got recounts. There's only one person that deserves the credit (or blame) for electing GWB. His name is Al Gore.
That is, if you ignore all of those votes being thrown out from BS challenges, voter intimidation, etc. I'm not trying to devolve this into some partisan argument, but the Florida Republican party has much to answer for during that election.
Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous
