benny

What about Sotomayor for a change!?

Paper is comforting only for the powerless. Nothing should be trusted easily in politics.

There is more than money in life.

It doesn't change the self-defeating aspect of the post.

Self-defeating post.

Again, here the relevant thread for that kind of considerations: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14173

Here from the press article in your original post:

Then, let's go back to what John Cornyn said about Sotomayor's present decision.

I have made a description of public events rather.

The temporality aspect of your argument doesn't make sense: If Tim Horton is moving away from the US because of what it expects to happen there in the next 4-8 years, it is certainly not because Canada is a much superior place to do business TODAY but most certainly because of what it expects to happen here in Canada in the next same 4-8 year period.

He has spun his way out.

After the public speech of her brother, this woman was approached by journalists and proved her brother had lied.

Yes. He is a troll and perhaps the next to be kicked out of here.

no

Clarence Thomas owes his seat at the Supreme Court to lies he said about his own sister: after having falsely accused his sister to live with food stamps, he attracts the endorsement of Republicans by moralizing all such "welfare queens".

It is precisely because e-voting requires the more advanced features that legislators chosen by this method and only them will be able to regulate online banking in particular and the new economy in general.

We would not be in the middle of this worldwide market meltdown mess if new criminal offenses would have existed for digital money; I'm therefore forced to conclude that to be able to follow the money, all legislators should be elected through a digital process.

These additional questions and new criminal offences would be enough for me to accept online voting.

But bush_cheney2004 was not speaking about this upcoming retirement but of a justice who recuses (sic!) him/herself (see post #17).

I think that the only real problem is that we have to assume that there will be a black market of PINs online.

To me, it is very simple: One cannot vote against online voting online; by voting online, this person is putting enough value on online voting.

It is secure as long as I can denounce someone who would post under my name (benny) an opinion that would contradict mine.

When capitalism was scared about communism, it introduced socialism to make revolutions appears unnecessary.

What about our passwords!?

Since we are using internet and neither in situ nor mail to speak about politics all together right here, there is no a priori reasons for wishing that our votes during elections not be done the same way as what we are doing here.