Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2014, 06:00:39 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 587
12201  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Jeb Bush after all? on: June 08, 2005, 01:02:38 pm
Electing people from the same family does not make the country a monarchy.

On the contrary, electing sons, wives, brothers ad. perpetua is just as bad as electing FDR to four terms, and requires the same solution, a constitutional amendment.

So Hillary is off the table then, right?  Smiley  Or is this a case of "You can't have family blood in office, but I can?"  And I guess the Adams and the Rooseveltes should have been punished too.  hehehe

If people from the same family are elected to office, it means that either a) the people really like the person/family, or b) the voters haven't done their homework.

No, the Adams shouldn't be "punished", I'm talking about a constitutional amendment, not ex post facto law, which is not only  unconstitutional itself but also entirely impossible and stupid. And no, I do not support Hillary.

And yes, it would apply equally to those of all parties, Republicans and Democrats, but it would not apply to any immediate relatives of those who served as president prior to the passage of the amendment; just as 22nd amendment did not apply to Truman.
12202  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Bolivia on: June 08, 2005, 12:57:57 pm
Latin America has been a development disaster. Many Latin American countries were better off on an absolute level in the 1970s then they are now.
12203  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Yet another scandal from the White House on: June 08, 2005, 12:53:48 pm
I don't like to harp on trivial things, but here is one that actually affects a serious policy.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House official who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents.

The White House denied that Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.
12204  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Natural and artificial geographic systems and voting on: June 08, 2005, 12:44:00 pm
To make any meaningful or interesting statement, you need to look at real correlations. All I see so far are maps of distributions. They may be interesting in and of themselves, but I can't draw a conclusion directly from them. I'm curious to see where you think the technological distribution will alter the existing geographic patterns.

I thought this was interesting, but haven't quantified this, so no, you can't draw direct conclusions, though it certainly would be possible to quantify with the necessary work and data gathering and it would almost certainly yield something. Perhaps Al has done something of the sort.

This is a look at a process that we are already at the tail end of already, as apparent from the maps. Most of it is historical. Most people already know that population density is now heavily correlated with vote choice.

The "IT" revolution has so far not changed the geography of population distribution in terms of how the biggest cleavages are structured. It has moved the population more towards the sunbelt (also for reasons that could be related to the geography of why industry originally developed in the northeast), but over the long term, I would hypothesize that somone living in the outer suburbs of, say, Dallas has more in common with someone living in the outer suburbs of New Hampshire than they do with someone living in central Dallas. When I say "in common" I mean partly economic and partly sociological. You can tell a lot about both factors based on where they live (and also possibly, what profession they are, but that's a separate discussion. the geographic characteristic is interesting here because Dave's and Bob's maps are here).

So mostly, this study does not point out the cleavage in vote choice based on population density, but tries to look at some of the more basic causes of it, and point out why that might be expected to continue to grow, for both economic and sociological reasons; and especially in the newer stages of industrialization to replace divisions within different agricultural modes of living and working, for a country that spans diverse growing seasons. If it can be generalized across other democracies with lengthy histories, that would be spectacular.
12205  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Howard Dean's latest on: June 08, 2005, 12:24:08 pm
Like BRTD said, I would be offended if this was a slam, but it's not,  it's basically accurate.
12206  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Pro Choice / Pro Life - who is winning the "Culture war" on: June 07, 2005, 05:59:22 pm
For example, among the "prolife" side, there is one strand of argument that opposes abortion rights from a "cultural" perspective. They see the ability of women to have sex without "facing the consequences" as an attack on "traditional" society, and oppose abortion rights and contraceptive education with near equal vigor.

My view is similar to this, but a bit expanded.  While yes, "responsibility of your actions" has to be taken into consideration, the burden should not rest upon the mother alone.  The man who impregnates the woman has just as much responsibility for the child.  If the couple is not married, and has no intention to become married, he must provide child support to the mother until the child turns 18 or the child is placed up for addoption.  With the mother being the one who brought the child into the world, it would be her decision to place the child up for adoption, not the fathers.

But in either case, the decision to have sex is theirs alone.  If the woman is not a willing participant (rape, incest,....), abortion should be allowed.  Just as if her life is in danger due to the pregnancy.

Thanks, this pretty much sums up the pro-life position in one of the two debates. Not all people's policy positions are derived exclusively from either culturally-centered or morally-centered convictions, but some are. Nor is it that "cultural" issues aren't morally grounded, or that "moral" judgments cannot be culturally grounded. It's just that the two debates generally use different types of justifications based either around cultural values (Judeo-Christian mores vs. Equality/Liberty etc) or around moral appeals to the conscience; and that arguments from one debate cannot justifiably be used to rebut arguments from the other, although they are often wrongly mixed.

The rape exception provides a good illustration of this. People who oppose abortion on mostly cultural grounds should be supportive of a rape exception, while whose who oppose it on mostly moral grounds should not.

Monopolization- correct. The underlying dynamics of a debate are more important than the status quo during a period when an issue is low salience. For example, in 1893 there was a massive economic crisis but Cleveland did nothing. The public was fundamentally opposed to government intervention in the economy. Yet when economic crisis hit in 1929, the people elected a president who instituted sweeping reforms under the New Deal. Why did the government respond so differently to economic crises?

Well, the underlying nature of the debate was changed by the Progressive Movement and the government's successful mobilization during World War I. The relatively placid, lassiez-faire America of the 1920s belied the fundamental changes in the debate over government's reaction to an economic crisis that had taken place underneath the surface. These changes had taken place underneath the surface because government reaction to economic depression wasn't a salient issue from 1896 to 1932. If you had taken polls in the 1920s on the issue, they would have been relatively constant in opposition to government intervention. But in general, the "opinions" seem stable because most people aren't thinking about the issue. In reality, very few people's opinions are as stable as political obsessives such as ourselves.

When an issue emerges after many years to high salience, the factors surrounding the issue will have changed-- in the New Deal case, ideological opposition to government intervention had been quietly eviserated by the progressive movement and WWI. Most people won't recognized these changed dynamics until they return to prominence. But they could have been identified by looking beneath the surface.

The same goes with abortion. The last time the issue was really salient was during the feminist movement of the 1970s. At that time the debate was heavily cultural. Most pro-lifers fit the profile of MODU here, in their beliefs and rhetoric. Today, the pro-life rhetoric has changed, helped by new technologies and strategies, and the dynamics are shifting away from the cultural debate to the moral debate, which is totally different. This means the seeming stability of public opinion and public policy over the decades belie fundamentally shifting dynamics that may leave pro-choice identifiers in for a rude shock once the issue again becomes highly salient (which is likely in the next 2-4 years).
12207  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GM to cut 25,000 jobs, shut more plants on: June 07, 2005, 05:36:49 pm
The union structure works in some cases and not in others. The fact that unionization pinches a corporation's profits makes no difference if all corporations are unionized.

Are you planning to unionize China, Mexico, Vietnam and every other third world country on the planet?

Yes, essentially.

When are you planning on becomming "Dictator of the world" ?

See my reply to Bono.
12208  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Harris Announces Senate Run (FL) on: June 07, 2005, 05:21:12 pm
I hope she gets beaten badly in the primary.
12209  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GM to cut 25,000 jobs, shut more plants on: June 07, 2005, 05:19:43 pm
The union structure works in some cases and not in others. The fact that unionization pinches a corporation's profits makes no difference if all corporations are unionized.

Are you planning to unionize China, Mexico, Vietnam and every other third world country on the planet?

Yes, essentially.

How do you plan on doing it?
Through the UN?

Actually, "essentially" meant "not necessarily". Unionization may or may not occur. Fundamentally what occurs in the long term (say 100 or 200 years) given continued capital accumulation is that labor becomes relatively scarce. Whether actual unionization occurs or not, the end result will be the same-- the workers' position improves relative to the owners of capital. That's the essential point. The sooner it happens, the better for everyone.
12210  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GM to cut 25,000 jobs, shut more plants on: June 07, 2005, 03:41:13 pm
The union structure works in some cases and not in others. The fact that unionization pinches a corporation's profits makes no difference if all corporations are unionized.

Are you planning to unionize China, Mexico, Vietnam and every other third world country on the planet?

Yes, essentially.
12211  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GM to cut 25,000 jobs, shut more plants on: June 07, 2005, 02:54:00 pm
The union structure works in some cases and not in others. The fact that unionization pinches a corporation's profits makes no difference if all corporations are unionized.

Today, unions face two main problems

1. Labor market flexibility and heterogeneity has made it less practical to unionize.

This is just something I've been told. I can see some superficial practical difficulties here, but nothing that systemically prevents white collar unionization from labor market flexibility and heterogeneity in and of itself.

2. The poor lack political power.

Before being able to unionize, the poor have had to gain political power. At least this was the case in the U.S.-- union membership did not take off until the NLRA. Ultimately, what unionization is, is a form of redistribution from the owners to the lower class workers. It is one of many forms.


The supply of labor, unfortunately for the poor, has always been greater than the size of consumer markets. We still live in a world of expansionist capitalism. Trying not to sound like a Marxist, at some point capitalism will no longer be able to find new "markets" and be forced to end that aspect of its expansion. But we are not there yet.

The labor market is always that which is opened first, because one must work before one can buy. The labor market was opened in England first and foremost through foreclosure which led to urbanization. The early opening of the labor market to capitalists means that there is an abundant supply of labor, and labor's bargaining position and political power is very weak. Even if it wanted to redistribute wealth towards itself, there would not be that much to redistribute; not enough has been made.

As time progresses, more and more capital is accumulated, and the rewards of redistribution to the poor become greater and greater while the rewards of further accumulation to the wealthy become less. This is true from the law of diminishing returns and also from the fact that the wealthy need larger and larger consumer markets for their goods. Naturally, the wealthy truly does "trickle down" to some extent, although not in the way Reagan imagined it; it often takes a political transformation for this to fully materialize; if "trickle down" means that the poor naturally get richer after the wealthy do, then political progressivism is a form of "trickle down".

The one caveat is technological. Technology's initial impact on the labor market more than counteracts capital accumulation by setting off a Malthusian process among the population. The middle of the industrial revolution coincides with a skyrocketing life expectancy and plummetting infant and child mortality rates. This means that the population explodes even as fertility rates begin to decline. Once fertility rates have fallen to replacement level, population growth necessarily moderates; but before this a population explosion has already occured.

This population explosion serves to more than counteract the accumulation of capital, and thus labor markets return to their original stage of industrial equilibirum: a large supply and comparatively small consumer markets. The final stage is the most devastating for the capitalist: the fertility rate has fallen to or below the replacement level, and capital accumulation continues apace steadily. This ultimately leads once again to the labor market tightening up, and it is at this stage that the working poor gain their greatest bargaining leverage, both from a political and practical standpoint.

The key here though is that, for sociological reasons, this process is obviously not uniform. It began in England, then spread outward from there from one place to another, like a shock wave. Furthermore, technological spread and capital accumulation have not spread geographically at the same rate.

(1) The "developed" regions of the world have gone through the full population cycle as well as a great deal of capital accumulation.

(2) The "developing" regions of the world are going through the population cycle and the capital accumulation process, but are at a much lower point in the latter process than the developed regions.

(3) The "underdeveloped" regions of the world are going through the population process but have not yet begun capital accumulation.

Let us now consider only the closed system of the developed and underdeveloped worlds, (1) and (3). Considering India for now as "underdeveloped" which is not an unfair classification I think, the underdeveloped world has a somewhat --not spectacularly-- but substantially larger population than the developed region. It is difficult to gauge the total capital-labor balance in this countries, but generally speaking, suppose that there is a relative balance between the supply and demand of labor within this closed system.

Now factor in the developing countries (China, Latin America, Southeast Asia, Russia), which are at an immature stage of capital accumulation but a mature stage of the population cycle. This means they have large populations compared to pre-industrial ones, but comparatively low levels of capital accumulation. If the closed system comparing (1) and (3) was balanced, considering the entire world almost certainly places labor at a disadvantage.

In other words, the current large ratio of poor to the availability of capital means that (a) insufficiently sized markets exist to accomodate the labor supply, and (b) insufficient capital exists to encompass the labor supply's needs or demands for redistribution.

These factors are working against the laboring poor. An equally significant factor, however, is the inability of the poor to organize.


Notice that I have been for the most part considering the entire world in my system. This is certainly the most rational consideration since the concepts unionization, labor, and capital, apply to the entire world, and no more, in the physical sense-- but contrary to what might seem common sensical, it is not intuitive to us. We are used to thinking in terms of national markets.

Thinking in terms of national, regional, "civilizational" or other localized units is a sociological phenomenon, but it tells us a great deal about the geographical spread of the population and capital accumulation cycles. It also tells us why labor movements in the 19th and early 20th century were successful despite the fact that the world has always had a surplus of labor compared to capital since the beginning of industrialization: both capitalists and laborers thought in terms of localized closed units, imposing an artificial barrier on the market.

These barriers were primarily not legal but sociological. Capital, for example, could have fled the United States in reaction to the New Deal and the NLRA, but did not, because most capitalists' paradigms involved localized, closed systems. They did not think in the 1930s to open up a plant in Mexico for sociological reasons (not economic or population ones, as we have been discussing now). Hence, human psychology imposed some "bumps" on the operation of the system.

Today, psychology, in addition to the supply and demand for labor, again helps explain the extreme weakness of the working poor in the face of the capitalists-- the capitalists have adjusted their psychology to eliminate localized effects. Capital has become more mobile, revealing once again the real labor/capital demand/supply balance, worldwide. From this perspective, labor's advantage in the early 20th century was totally dependent on a closed, localized system.

Labor supply in the developed countries has good reason to resist this because the localization psychology benefitted them by "speeding up" the natural development of economic history. But economic isolationism is their only hope for entirely maintaining that system, and such isolationism has other detriments which over the long term may just as well harm labor as much as it would help it.

As a consequence, and even more so primarily as a consequence of continued localized psychologies within the developing and underdeveloped regions, the working poor face much greater barriers towards organization than their predecessors did within localized contexts, when and if they should choose to make the attempt.


If this story presents a bleak picture for labor in the short and medium term, it is only because it considers economic history at still a early-to-middle stage of advancement, at best. The end of the story tells a happy ending, for the simple reason of continued capital accumulation. What happened on a localized scale in the mid-20th century in developed economies provides a glimpse of what will eventually happen in a worldwide scale in the face of such continued accumulation. Such a process is welcomed by both capitalists and laborers, but in the long run it will increase the supply of capital compared to labor, especially through consumer markets, and thus increase the bargaining power of labor, and restoring the potency of unions. Once the laborers' "restoration" in economic leverage has occured, it can never again be reversed, because all parts of the world will have already long passed their population cycles, and the structure of middle class living will naturally cause capital to increase at a more rapid rate than labor.
12212  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Natural and artificial geographic systems and voting on: June 07, 2005, 01:23:15 pm
There's probably a growing season map in some books; might be hard to get though.

On this general subject, a while back I did a little thing comparing U.K voting patterns with a geological map; some very interesting things came up with that.

Did you post anything about it on Atlas? From a very casual observations, the coal industry in the north is probably responsible for Labour voting patterns there, and the decline of that industry might shift U.K. cleavages more towards the same urban-suburban split trend you see in the U.S.
12213  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kerry Releases All Military Records... on: June 07, 2005, 01:16:59 pm
This isn't as bad as hoarding millions of dollars raised for his campaign until after the election. Anyone know what ended up happening to that money?
12214  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Theory of justice: Rawls or Nozick on: June 07, 2005, 12:57:33 pm
NickG- which school did you go to?

One would assume Havard as both Nozick and Rawls taught there.

If so, quite impressive.
12215  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dean wins Wisconsin... what happens next? on: June 07, 2005, 12:52:28 pm
No, by then it was too late.
12216  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: What is your difinition of truth? on: June 07, 2005, 12:50:08 pm

As an aside, I personally take a special case of Euler's equation, which reads as follows:

eiπ + 1 = 0

...to be my personal proof of the existence of God.

Gabu, I am impressed with your posts in this thread, especially since my career in mathematics ended after my first  course in college calculus.

Could you enlighten this layman on the above equation and your take on it? (Don't work too hard, please - I don't expect more than slight enlightenment.)

One of the things that makes this equation so elegant is that it ties together fundamental symbols from different branches of mathematics into a single expression.

In arithmetic the basic unit of counting is 1.

In group theory 0 and 1 are the identity elements for addition and multiplication respectively. That is if you add 0 you get the same result, and if you multiply by 1 you get the same result.

In algebra the symbol i is required to provide solutions to all quadratic equations. The simplest example is to solve the equation x2 = -1. The answer is the "imaginary" unit i or -i.

In geometry the symbol π represents the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter. It has been known for a long time that this ratio is not derivable from simple algebra.

In calculus the symbol e is the base for the natural logarithm. The expression ex is the only function (other than 0) whose derivative is itself.

12217  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Natural and artificial geographic systems and voting on: June 07, 2005, 12:38:13 pm
Great post; very interesting Smiley

Is there a bigger version of this map:


Thank you Al. I have been trying to get a better image of average growing season length among the major crops but the plant hardiness was the closest I could find. It does not really take into account rainfall, which is very low in the west and thus the West coast looks the same as the south, but for agricultural purposes only the southeast is extremely fertile for cash crops.
12218  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: SCOTUS rules against medical marijuana patients and states rights on: June 07, 2005, 12:27:46 pm
OK, an honest question:
If medical marijuana is so effective, why don't it's advocates try to get FDA approval?  Why shouldn't it have to go through the same rigorous testing process as any other prescription drug?  Without this sort of legitimacy, they "medical marijuana" movement seems more like an attempt at backdoor general legalization than a bona fide medical treatment.

It is ridiculous to me that the legality of a prescription drug should be decided by statewide referendum.  Should the safety and effectiveness of the next Viagra clone or the next AIDS treatment be decided by majority vote?  Maybe it should be decided by doctors and scientists who have actual medical knowledge of how the drug works.

Good point. I have always suspected as much.
12219  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Theory of justice: Rawls or Nozick on: June 07, 2005, 12:04:19 pm
I tend to be suspicious of a philosophy that entirely ends- or means- based, so I'll have to go with Rawls.

NickG- which school did you go to?
12220  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Pro Choice / Pro Life - who is winning the "Culture war" on: June 06, 2005, 07:32:17 pm
"The" abortion debate is actually 2 debates.

Could you elucidate on that some.

I don't disagree,  I think there are two seperate debates - one of whether or not it should be legal, the other of morality, dividing people into three or four different groups depending on how you count.

Legal/ morally acceptable.
Legal/ morally questionable
illegal/morally reprehensible.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. A lot of liberals seem to fall into the middle category there, which personally to me seems a little confusing, but what I was meaning was that there are 2 separate questions being debated-- what rights should a woman (a "cultural" debate) have, and what rights should a fetus have (a "moral" debate)?

For example, among the "prolife" side, there is one strand of argument that opposes abortion rights from a "cultural" perspective. They see the ability of women to have sex without "facing the consequences" as an attack on "traditional" society, and oppose abortion rights and contraceptive education with near equal vigor.

There is another strand of argument that is against abortion rights from a "moral" perspective. They see no moral distinction between a newly fertilized zygote and a newborn baby, and have been convinced by graphic pictures and ultrasound that legalized abortion is the moral equivalent to slavery or even genocide. A considerable number of otherwise moderate or even liberal people consider themselves pro-life for this reason.

For each of these pro-life strands, there is a countervailing pro-choice strand; one defends a woman's right to an abortion on cultural (feminist/woman-centered) grounds; the other on moral (fetus-centered) grounds.

The debate originated along the "cultural" clash in the 1970s, but the "moral" debate is more of a winning issue for the pro-lifers due to the spread of ultrasound and the legality of late term abortion, and this is what accounts for their narrow recent advantage. As a result, activists in the "moral" aspect of the debate are more effective and have, barely perceptibly, become more numerous, especially in pro-life circles, in the past 10 years or so.

IMO, in order to rebalance the debate, pro-choicers must begin to also address the issue more in moral terms, even if this means re-adjusting their views. The stem cell debate shows that this can be done without giving in to the pro-lifers.
12221  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Another biased article on: June 06, 2005, 07:07:25 pm
Bring back Death Wish II!  Truman had good job creation numbers, but he sacrificed everything else to get there, like inflation.  I think his approval rating was about 30% when he left office.

In any case, I don't see anything in that story that's not accurate.

Truman's job creation numbers are not what is unusual; it's the 2001-2005 numbers that are out of line historically. Looking at the 2004-2005 period is extremely generous to Bush/the current recovery. The recession officially ended in November 2001! If the entire period from then until now was averaged out and compared to recoveries in 1991-95, 1983-87, and 1975-79, the abnormally low job creation of this cycle would almost certainly be devastatingly clear.

Anyways, his low approval was out of public tiredness due to 20 years of Democrats, the McCarthy hearings, and above all his dispute with General McArthur.

Bias does not necessarily need to mean outright lies.
12222  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Another biased article on: June 06, 2005, 06:50:43 pm
Pro-Owen sob story in bold.
Sentences critical of Owen in Italics.
Neutral / event-based sentences in normal text.
(Editorial comments) in parantheses.


By KELLEY SHANNON, Associated Press Writer Mon Jun 6, 1:34 PM ET

AUSTIN, Texas - Texas judge Priscilla Owen, the subject of a long and heated confirmation battle in the U.S. Senate, took the oath of office Monday for her new seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Owen, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court for more than a decade, won Senate confirmation to the federal post last month after a four-year fight over President Bush's push to place conservatives on the nation's highest courts. She became the first of Bush's long-blocked nominees to win approval under an agreement reached by centrists in the Senate.

"This has been a long road," Owen, 50, said after her swearing-in ceremony at the Texas Supreme Court chamber. She used one of Sam Houston's Bibles to take the oath of office.

"This is bittersweet for me because I'm saying goodbye to some of the finest people I've ever had the pleasure of working with," she said.

Owen was first nominated by Bush to the federal appeals court in May 2001. She continued to serve on Texas' highest civil court while awaiting confirmation.

Democrats argued that Owen allowed her political beliefs to color her rulings. They were particularly critical of her decisions in abortion cases involving teenagers.

(what decisions? No specific objections are ever mentioned. No matter. Right to the rebuttal...)

But Republicans said those criticisms were politically motivated. They noted that she easily won election to the Texas Supreme Court in 1994 and re-election in 2000.

"The president stood firm against those who would distort her record," said Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. He said it was hard to imagine the strength Owen mustered to withstand four years of criticism.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record) and Gov. Rick Perry also praised the way Owen conducted herself.

Hutchison, who worked to get the judge a confirmation vote in the Senate, said Owen displayed "judicial temperament" while never complaining about her treatment in the Senate.

"Priscilla Owen stood, and she stood with integrity," Hutchison said. "She took it like a champion and deserves to be sitting on the federal bench today."

Owen is filling a post vacated in 1997, when a judge took on senior status, which is a more limited role with the court.

"We have been waiting eight years for you," Chief Judge Carolyn King of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. "But you, Priscilla Owen, have been worth the wait."

(I'm crying already!!)

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is based in New Orleans. It hears appeals from federal districts courts in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.
12223  Questions and Answers / Presidential Election Process / Re: What if terrorists detonate a nuke in DC... on: June 06, 2005, 06:06:43 pm
This is a scary scenario.

Yes, but we should prepare for the possibility.

Personally, that consists of praying to God for salvation.
12224  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: gender on: June 06, 2005, 06:03:18 pm
Nouns: Gender
People: Sex
HAHAHAHA, correct.

I voted nature.

Actuall, they are interchangeable. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

3. a. The condition of being female or male; sex.
    b. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

In reply to the question, its obviously both.
12225  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: California F-scale test on: June 06, 2005, 05:54:29 pm

"You are a disciplined but tolerant, a true American"



Let's start a 3.4666 club
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 587

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines