Largely fantasy. Plimer has been campaigning against belief in anthropogenic global warming for years. His book has barely registered here in public debate, notwithstanding that the usual suspects have been excited by it. It is true that the government is having something of a struggle to get its legislation through the Senate. That is nothing new and is simply a reflection of the political makeup of the Senate and of the politics being played. The true position is that the governing Labor Party believes in anthropogenic global warming without qualification and the opposition party has moved from outright scepticism to a position where it basically accepts anthropogenic global warming but is against Australia getting ahead of the rest of the world in its policies due to concern about the economic consequences of doing so. John Carson

Step one is in full swing. Step two NEVER happens in US government. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

John Carson wrote: So, as a matter of Constitutional principle, you think local communities (but not the Federal government) should be able to criminalize racist speech. The federal government has no constitutional authority to label one form of speech vs another unless the constitution is amended to provide for it. But, historically, the US has always had local ordinances in virtually every little town outlawing certain offensive forms of speech, and no one ever got bent out of shape about it. So, it isn't a matter of what I think, it is simply an historic fact. Now obviously, one man's political speech is another man's offensive rant, so the courts have to be there to distinquish, but there has never until recently been any blanket disregard for community standards by the courts. John Carson wrote: However, your preference as a citizen would be that local communities not criminalize racist speech. Yes, just as I would also prefer they not criminalize abortion, homosexuality or many other issues. Given the opportunity, I would argue that people be allowed to freely express their sentiments about race even if it is offensive. Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Ilíon wrote: it's too bad I can't be as original as you kiddies It is. You will just have to try harder, dear child. Bob Emmett

It is surprising how fast the politician changes the story after they get elected. X| Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes

Oakman wrote: John, I am afraid you aren't following this case closely enough. Pelosi's "defense" is that she was told that the CIA was planning on committing waterboarding. I was responding to your exact words which referred to a past crime: "knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it is equivalent to having committed the crime". This is false. The possibility of future crime was incorporated in my reply, which you have ignored. Since you raise the issue of Pelosi's comments...from what I have heard, Pelosi hasn't said "she was told the CIA was planning on committing waterboarding". Pelosi has said that they told her they had received legal advice saying certain things would be permissible should they decide to do them, not that they had decided to do them. Oakman wrote: Which she certainly took - again by her own testimony. Quotes please. Oakman wrote: Equally true of all the conservatives she wishes to hang out to dry. I doubt that. The legal position of someone who commits an offence is not the same as the legal position of someone who merely knows about it. For a person who commits an offence, the general rule is that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", though reliance on legal advice may offer some sort of defence or mitigation in limited circumstances. For someone who merely knows about it --- well they don't know about it in any meaningful sense if they are ignorant of the relevant law. It would be an impossible burden to place on bystanders to insist that they assume responsibility for notifying the authorities of an offence, even when they don't know it is an offence and have a good reason for not thinking it is. Since the crime of "failure to report" is so rarely prosecuted, I doubt that I can find case law to support this contention, but I have no doubt that any court would find as I have stated. The fact is that Pelosi is almost irrelevant to this whole drama. The Republicans have been desperately trying to make the case that a bystander is equivalent to a principal, but it just isn't so. John Carson modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:35 AM

John Carson wrote: Now that was funny I thought so, too. :thumbsup: Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Unemployment in Tasmania has gone up, so I guess it's not all good news. Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )

John Carson wrote: No, my point is that Obama is only "socialist" in a completely debased sense of the word --- just as George Bush was only "fascist" in a completely debased sense of the word. George Bush was never a fascist in any sense of the word, Obama is a collectivist in every sense of the word. Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Simply everyone knows :laugh: that it's not allowed to simply post a link to an interesting item.

Why would that be a problem? :confused: Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Synaptrik wrote: But I'm not holding my breath. :zzz: Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

John Carson wrote: He gets good guests Yes, he does. Maybe I'll try watching tonight. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

John Carson wrote: The thing about earmarks is that they represent 1 to 2% of spending. Yep, knew that. John Carson wrote: I agree that they give spending bills a bad look True of course but my point was not that, but rather what it says about the people that make sure they get theirs in. ;)

Yep, that's all pretty much right on. Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

I didnt ask how they function I asked what their goals are. Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Rob Graham wrote: I think the way that actually works (with all deference to the Bible) is that when you lower yourself to the level of fools, they trounce you with their folly, being much more practiced. That can certainly happen. :) John Carson

Proof![^] ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

The Feldstein/Stiglitz interview was great - even better because I have a job interview coming up. Thanks John.

Thats not so fascinating... Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.