Search results

Interestingly, if you have a law forbidding teaching of "sexuality" or "sexual identity," then saying "Billy lives with his Mommy and his Daddy" is every bit as illegal as saying "Billy lives with his two Mommies." Not that the former will ever be prosecuted, mind. It's the red-state way...

So, if we're going to give the sovereign power to the owners of the resources, we should limit the franchise to. . . the government! Or maybe the Crown.

That reminds me. When I go shopping, I need to pick up some ham.

Y'all still got a ways to go. When you quit knowing or caring what letters come before "illion," you'll be in the big leagues.

"Go away, boy. You bother me." --The Great W.C.

I ain't doubting he's good. I was just a little struck with him being declared "the" leading expert. Do you get a special pin or something?

Easy-peasy. The equation is quite simple: Revenues collected - expenditures = 0 (after application of GROWTH! and INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE!) Some MAGIC! may be necessary.

How do you get to be "the leading expert?" Is it like the Order of Canada or something?

Was it at band camp?

The wisdom of William Claude Dukenfeld. . .

No, I mean why not limit the franchise to landowners?

The saddest part is how many of 'em are so self-oblivious that they would, in all their unreflective cluelessness, honestly deny it.

I figure their Step 1 is to hold the line on "Men are men, women are women. You're one or the other, cuz that's natural and how Gawd made it." Step 2 is "Men are superior, and the place of a woman is one step behind, cuz that's natural and how Gawd made it." Step 3 is "White men are superior...

Besides, there are market solutions to these problems. Nanny-ware can be made much more smart and powerful. If a family, school, library, or any other place wants to put nanny-ware on its computers, I'm perfectly OK with that. The most depressing thing about the whole flap we had down here...

Why them? Why not the people that own the resources?

She don't wanna get in a contentious debate right now. Be cool. There are reasons to censor the internet. Good reasons. Just not good enough. Little kids stumbling across (or deliberately seeking) Granny getting spit-roasted or some slobbering moron worshipping Hitler and bashing gays will...

Yup. Generally, any time you grant the government power, you need to imagine what a future government of the party you hate most might do with it. The internet's full of trash that should never be spoken (or thought, but that's another argument). But I see good signs in that the major...

Just drop it, both of you. She's using "argument" in the sense of "people yelling past each other," and you're using it in the more formal sense. Both are valid. Drive on.

A comedian named Lenny Bruce got jailed for his "freedom" several times in the early 60s. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. This is a bad law that will inevitably be used to quell speech. Just saying don't rely too heavily on your constitution to protect you.