Because you do not understand how bad the legislation that "would mandate that public policy be based on publicly available Science" is does not make this ironic... it simply makes you ignorant.
To drawn the prophet would be to create something physical that can lead to idolatry... which is verbotten by God. As for your assertation:
Also, it's perfectly OK (according to the Old Testament) for non-Jews to worship idols. In fact, the fact that this occurred is a basic premise of much of the Old Testament, and never are the non-Jews admonished for it.
However, in the rabbinic doctrine of the Noahide laws [the seven laws Judaism expects non-Jews to follow]–the Torah for all mankind so to speak–idolatry is as serious an offense for Gentiles as it is for Jews, although, in the nature of the case, this was purely academic. It was unlikely in the extreme in rabbinic times that a Gentile would ask a Rabbi whether or not he was allowed by the Torah to worship his gods.
Islam is derived from Judaism. The Old Testament has a great deal of bearing on Islam, including the prophets (and yes, including Jesus). The most conservative Muslims take idolatry extremely seriously, unlike Christians (US Christians) who will practice idolatry at the drop of a hat... a cross, a crucifix, a flag, a burnt piece of toast, a water stain on the ground.... pretty much anything they can con their mind into believing has some passing resemblance to a face they con themselves into believing is Jesus.
The difference between Muslims and Christians (especially those in the US), is that the most conservative Muslims actually try to live they way their religion teaches (including not just the Qur'an, but the Old Testament as well), and yes, idolatry is a very serious no-no. Just think if the most conservative Christians would actually live the way Jesus taught.... putting all their energy into feeding the poor, housing and clothing those without, helping the sick... instead we have the most conservative Christians doing pretty much everything opposite of how Jesus' teachings go; they're just not as dedicated as the conservative Muslims are.
Unfortunately, the period you're referring to was an inherently unsustainable one caused by the fact that the US emerged as a victor from a World War, and coincidentally the only one of the major powers in that war whose population and infrastructure were not seriously ravaged by it. Even among the victors - Britain, China, France, let's not even mention the Soviets - all paid a heavy price on their home territory. The losers received economic support from the magnanimous Western powers, but that was cold comfort to a populace largely bombed into ruins.
So the US got to live in a bubble for a decade or two where the rest of the world didn't have the technology or the infrastructure to compete with us in any meaningful economic area.
And you'd be right on that if you weren't so wrong. I understand, it's a common talking meme of people who never learned the recent history of countries other than the US, but.....
The Marshall Plan helped reconstruction for most of western Europe (including West Germany) and by the time funding for the plan ended in 1952, the economies of all 18 countries had surpassed pre-war levels. 1951 was more than 1/3 better than 1938 for all countries involved. This idea that the US was the only ones around doing anything is not only absurd, but incredibly wrong.
The poster you replied to had it right.... our growth in the 50's and 60's also had 90% top marginal tax rates attached to them. People didn't "gain" as much wealth by pulling it out of companies then, because so much of it was consumed by taxes. It was better to reinvest it into the business to avoid those high taxes, and play the long game by growing the business. As soon as it became less of a tax burden to remove money (profits) from businesses, that's what owners did.. preferring the get-rich-right-now approach instead of actually growing businesses.
Higher tax rates made reinvesting profit into the businesses preferred, the GI bill was turning out hundreds of thousands of higher educated individuals, that damn socialized national roadways thing the commie lover Eisenhower pushed seemed to explode the growth potential of pretty much everything (other than horse and buggy sales), and then that other socialist kid Kennedy said "lets go to the moon," which helped do a number on pretty much every piece of solid state electronics EVER (and we just happened to have hundreds of thousands of highly educated people hanging around just looking to do something.... odd how that worked out).
But all that growth for those decades had dick to do with western Europe rebuilding, because that took a lot less time than most realize.
Here we go again. The deficit from Clinton's years was due to Republican Congress setting the budget.
Then explain why it is that the first year Bush is elected, with that SAME republican controlled congress, they pissed away a projected 5.7 trillion dollar 10 year projected surplus? The last 4 years of Clinton budgets resulted in: 1998 - $69.3 billion budget surplus, 1999 - $125.6 billion budget surplus, 2000 - $236.2 billion budget surplus, and 2001 - $128.2 billion budget surplus; the first four years of Bush's budgets...with that same republican controlled congress... netted us this: 2002 - $157.8 billion budget deficit, 2003 - $377.6 billion budget deficit, 2004 - $412.7 billion budget deficit, 2005 - $319 billion budget deficit.... and it only got worse from there.
A 5.7 trillion dollar surplus over the next 10 years would have come very close to eliminating ALL US debt... instead, Bush and the rest of his party of fiscal irresponsibility chose to ignore the debt, and give (most of) that money to the wealthiest.
Bush did a lot wrong, but the economy wasn't one of them.
Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit. Two wars paid for by deficit spending, tax cuts that wiped out our surplus and transferred even more deficit spending directly to the wealthiest, and a massive unfunded (yes, MORE deficit spending) give-away to big pharma. There wasn't a thing Bush touched involving the economy that he did fuck up like a 5 dollar whore.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You have repeatedly stated things that are simply wrong when it comes to the Constitution. Either you're intentionally lying, or a complete fucking idiot. I understand.. you have your head buried so far up your conservative dogma's ass you can see it's tonsils, but you're just fucking wrong. It's people like you who are the reason these reports come out saying people in the US have an abysmal knowledge of history.
IF the EPA was unconstitutional, it'd already be gone with all the fucking raving sociopathic conservatives in office today. It's not, therefor even the complete fucking idiot conservative republicans in office have a better understanding of things than you do.... and that says volumes about the level of your head-up-ass dogma worship. The fucking conservative idiots in office yell and scream and whine like little bitches about government overreach and authority, but at the end of the day they get their nuts kicked by the reality that all they're doing, and all the can do, is con a bunch of idiots that are even stupider than they are into believing their lies and tantrums.
What it ultimately comes down to is: uneducated, ignorant, propaganda filled bullshit opinions mean absolutely nothing because the people with them choose to be stupid than a fucking rock and live outside reality. Maybe you should quit being part of the problem.
You need to go back read a little history on why Galileo was punished.
Yes, the church has been on the wrong side of a whole lot of science, but Galileo's predicament was largely his own fault, and had little to do with science. Giordano Bruno might have been a better choice for an example, although his BBQ wasn't entirely about his stance in science.
That said, the church also accepts natural selection, and when it's been faced with evidence of it's incorrectness, it does come around (eventually). The ones here on the wrong side are the ones who are being bought and paid for mouthpieces for industries that stand to lose lots of money should humanity start taking corrective action. As we've seen, the scientists who populate that side tend to have minimally connected area's of study at best, and at worst are nothing more than common people with no education in any field at all, but they just want their uneducated and ignorant opinion to be heard as loud as possible.
The title of this should be something along the lines of: "ESPN sues because it doesn't think Verizon is meeting it's contract." Nothing much more about it. It doesn't matter what anyone else really thinks... if the two of them entered a contract, then both sides are legally required to oblige by it.
I think you need to go back and learn a little history, instead of relying on the spoon-fed-from-a-fucking-right-wing-insurectionst bullshit you've apparently been living on. The US constitution was designed to empower the federal government because the whole "weak fed, strong states" position proved to be a complete fucking disaster in less than a decade with the confederacy... and the founding father knew that because they lived through it. Fucking idiots now who think that the "weak fed, strong states" is what the constitution is about have their heads up their ass, and are completely ignorant of American history between 1776 and 1787.
You're right in a way... the problem it trivializes is that there's a faction of people in this country who lie anytime they need to dupe idiots into a frenzy about some made up threat, and those fucking asswipes NEVER face repercussions from their lies. Grumpy pretty much hit it on the head.... it's worthless lying sacks of shit trying to influence politics (and make money). Life isn't always simple... but sometimes it is.
That's why we call it a "social science," and why real scientists point at them and laugh. The past few years we've seen some absolutely horrendous papers put out by these people who use fatally flawed methodology to set up experiments, and then come up with completely bat-shit stupid conclusions from their "research." The sad thing is, this isn't a recent thing... i remember review mags in the 80's and seeing some of the same kind of shit research. All you could do is just look around the lab and join in with everyone else shaking their heads in disbelief that anyone was so fucking clueless.
But, Geekmeister also has a point on the research itself. (good) Research is way undervalued, and the researchers tend to be overworked, under-payed, and not appreciated. I always get a good laugh at these dumbfucks who comment that climate researchers just do it for the paychecks they get form the government..... which brings us back to the phrase "so fucking clueless."
Other than Afghanistan being willing to extradite him if they were given evidence he was complicit in the crime? Here's an idea.... give the fucking Afganie gov the fucking evidence! I'd suggest that would have been a whole fucking hell of a lot better than what we did on pretty much every fucking level.. unless you're a fucking murderous sociopath that needs to be removed from society because you're a danger to everyone around you.
Sorry, you really need to tell Christians in the US that.... well... the fake christians in the US who use their "charitable givings" to boost their social status, much like they use any and every other aspect of "christianity" that they can. You can start with the politicians. And to avoid people laughing at you hysterically, you may want to inject the word "supposedly" in that line... at least once, although more might be better.
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
5b : the object of such devotion
5c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Yes, they are. The problem isn't that Mitch is wrong (because he's correct), it's that you're an AC who doesn't have the basic knowledge of what a word means, and you are adamant about making sure everyone knows you're ignorant. Take a quarter and go buy a dictionary.
Perhaps you need to do just a little hint of what actually happened then. I realize that being scared may seem like your right, but being scared because you're ignorant makes your ignorance really stand out. The FCC did EXACTLY their job, using the tools they had which WERE given to them by congress... just not the fucking asswipe, do nothing, government hating, fringe dickwads we have in there right now.
I've always preferred a hybrid explanation for the event. Prior to the whole Theia hypothesis, one of the main ideas for the moons creation was it simply accreted with Earth as a binary planet system. The Theia hypothesis (man doesn't that sound like a good name for a sci-fi book) simply started off saying there was an impact and the moon was re-coalesced around the remaining Theian core from some of the ejecta.
That required, as you alluded to, that another planet/proto-planet was just kinda wandering through our systems disk due to whatever reason, such as gravitational pull from one of the gas giants; certainly a valid possibility, but it just seemed to me that the hybrid of Theia forming in our orbital path and eventually impacting with us was an easier event to explain... more one of those "just happen to be cleaning our surroundings" than "lucky shot from the rough" type of things.
This composition analysis seems to support the dual formation in the same/near same orbit idea.
There's people even on the reddit thread pointing out that the person mentioning Snowden has no basis for the assumption. As with all things, follow the money; in a couple days if that link to "Snowden" donations turns out to be some fat fuck padding his own bank account by preying off mental midgets, i will not be surprised in the least.
From what the EO actually looks like, i'd suggest the only ones who are going to be hating it are the hackers and thieves stealing personal data.... oh, and the numbnuts who have such a kneejerk reaction of hating anything Obama does so much that if he came out in favor of breathing, they'd all hold their breaths till dead.
Remember what they say about assuming. The title of the article should be something along the lines of: "Potential con-man fleecing more anti-Obama idiots by scaring them again."
A point your leaving out, however, is that that general, and those Hezbolla fighters were headed to a Syrian outpost that the Iranians helped to build, to defend against rebels.... you know, those guys with the ever changing initials of ISIS, IS, or whichever way they go together this week. Additionally, while those more cowardly or rabid fear the "inevitable" attack of Iran against Israel, Israels attack against those fighters fighting ISIS was inside a different sovereign nation. This was not a defensive strike, it was an attack.
A lot of the rhetoric from Iran the past decade has been blown up because of poor translations, and the complete lack of ability to understand any nuanced speech at all by a certain segment of sociopath war-mongers in the US. Overall though, when you compare what Israel has done in countries other than Israel, to what Iran has done in countries other than Iran.. for the past 50 years.... Israel is by far and away more likely to start wars, although they always try to call them "defensive actions," which the gullible, or the sociopaths, gobble up.
I believe you think my comment was an endorsement of facebook, when it was actually an assessment on the stupidity of scientology. As for the election of people unworthy to be in office, that's a given.
You have state representatives who don't have a basic understanding of the female anatomy trying to regulate women's medical treatments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
You have had others running for office that think women can magically turn off their bodies ability to become pregnant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There is a resurgence of the anti-intellectualism culture in this country, and it's being elected into positions where it can do unimaginable damage to our country. Stupid people make stupid decisions, and when those stupid people are in public office, they make stupid decisions that fuck up everyone's life. In all honesty, the Kardashian's you speak of would be less stupid than some of those who are in now (and no, that's not an endorsement of the Kardashians).
Slashdot Mirror
Simply put: you're a fucking idiot.
Because you do not understand how bad the legislation that "would mandate that public policy be based on publicly available Science" is does not make this ironic... it simply makes you ignorant.
To drawn the prophet would be to create something physical that can lead to idolatry... which is verbotten by God. As for your assertation:
Also, it's perfectly OK (according to the Old Testament) for non-Jews to worship idols. In fact, the fact that this occurred is a basic premise of much of the Old Testament, and never are the non-Jews admonished for it.
However, in the rabbinic doctrine of the Noahide laws [the seven laws Judaism expects non-Jews to follow]–the Torah for all mankind so to speak–idolatry is as serious an offense for Gentiles as it is for Jews, although, in the nature of the case, this was purely academic. It was unlikely in the extreme in rabbinic times that a Gentile would ask a Rabbi whether or not he was allowed by the Torah to worship his gods.
Islam is derived from Judaism. The Old Testament has a great deal of bearing on Islam, including the prophets (and yes, including Jesus). The most conservative Muslims take idolatry extremely seriously, unlike Christians (US Christians) who will practice idolatry at the drop of a hat... a cross, a crucifix, a flag, a burnt piece of toast, a water stain on the ground.... pretty much anything they can con their mind into believing has some passing resemblance to a face they con themselves into believing is Jesus.
http://www.openbible.info/topi...
The difference between Muslims and Christians (especially those in the US), is that the most conservative Muslims actually try to live they way their religion teaches (including not just the Qur'an, but the Old Testament as well), and yes, idolatry is a very serious no-no. Just think if the most conservative Christians would actually live the way Jesus taught.... putting all their energy into feeding the poor, housing and clothing those without, helping the sick... instead we have the most conservative Christians doing pretty much everything opposite of how Jesus' teachings go; they're just not as dedicated as the conservative Muslims are.
Yes, they take the old testaments admonishment not to practice idolatry very serious.
Unfortunately, the period you're referring to was an inherently unsustainable one caused by the fact that the US emerged as a victor from a World War, and coincidentally the only one of the major powers in that war whose population and infrastructure were not seriously ravaged by it. Even among the victors - Britain, China, France, let's not even mention the Soviets - all paid a heavy price on their home territory. The losers received economic support from the magnanimous Western powers, but that was cold comfort to a populace largely bombed into ruins.
So the US got to live in a bubble for a decade or two where the rest of the world didn't have the technology or the infrastructure to compete with us in any meaningful economic area.
And you'd be right on that if you weren't so wrong. I understand, it's a common talking meme of people who never learned the recent history of countries other than the US, but.....
The Marshall Plan helped reconstruction for most of western Europe (including West Germany) and by the time funding for the plan ended in 1952, the economies of all 18 countries had surpassed pre-war levels. 1951 was more than 1/3 better than 1938 for all countries involved. This idea that the US was the only ones around doing anything is not only absurd, but incredibly wrong.
The poster you replied to had it right.... our growth in the 50's and 60's also had 90% top marginal tax rates attached to them. People didn't "gain" as much wealth by pulling it out of companies then, because so much of it was consumed by taxes. It was better to reinvest it into the business to avoid those high taxes, and play the long game by growing the business. As soon as it became less of a tax burden to remove money (profits) from businesses, that's what owners did.. preferring the get-rich-right-now approach instead of actually growing businesses.
Higher tax rates made reinvesting profit into the businesses preferred, the GI bill was turning out hundreds of thousands of higher educated individuals, that damn socialized national roadways thing the commie lover Eisenhower pushed seemed to explode the growth potential of pretty much everything (other than horse and buggy sales), and then that other socialist kid Kennedy said "lets go to the moon," which helped do a number on pretty much every piece of solid state electronics EVER (and we just happened to have hundreds of thousands of highly educated people hanging around just looking to do something.... odd how that worked out).
But all that growth for those decades had dick to do with western Europe rebuilding, because that took a lot less time than most realize.
Here we go again. The deficit from Clinton's years was due to Republican Congress setting the budget.
Then explain why it is that the first year Bush is elected, with that SAME republican controlled congress, they pissed away a projected 5.7 trillion dollar 10 year projected surplus? The last 4 years of Clinton budgets resulted in: 1998 - $69.3 billion budget surplus, 1999 - $125.6 billion budget surplus, 2000 - $236.2 billion budget surplus, and 2001 - $128.2 billion budget surplus; the first four years of Bush's budgets...with that same republican controlled congress... netted us this: 2002 - $157.8 billion budget deficit, 2003 - $377.6 billion budget deficit, 2004 - $412.7 billion budget deficit, 2005 - $319 billion budget deficit.... and it only got worse from there.
A 5.7 trillion dollar surplus over the next 10 years would have come very close to eliminating ALL US debt... instead, Bush and the rest of his party of fiscal irresponsibility chose to ignore the debt, and give (most of) that money to the wealthiest.
Bush did a lot wrong, but the economy wasn't one of them.
Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit. Two wars paid for by deficit spending, tax cuts that wiped out our surplus and transferred even more deficit spending directly to the wealthiest, and a massive unfunded (yes, MORE deficit spending) give-away to big pharma. There wasn't a thing Bush touched involving the economy that he did fuck up like a 5 dollar whore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes....
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You guys are so transparent. The same old mistaken arguments every time, yet you ignore any bad news from 'your team'.
Perhaps you should be looking in the mirror when you say that. It would take a fucking idiot to not see the damage Bush did to this country.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You have repeatedly stated things that are simply wrong when it comes to the Constitution. Either you're intentionally lying, or a complete fucking idiot. I understand.. you have your head buried so far up your conservative dogma's ass you can see it's tonsils, but you're just fucking wrong. It's people like you who are the reason these reports come out saying people in the US have an abysmal knowledge of history.
IF the EPA was unconstitutional, it'd already be gone with all the fucking raving sociopathic conservatives in office today. It's not, therefor even the complete fucking idiot conservative republicans in office have a better understanding of things than you do.... and that says volumes about the level of your head-up-ass dogma worship. The fucking conservative idiots in office yell and scream and whine like little bitches about government overreach and authority, but at the end of the day they get their nuts kicked by the reality that all they're doing, and all the can do, is con a bunch of idiots that are even stupider than they are into believing their lies and tantrums.
What it ultimately comes down to is: uneducated, ignorant, propaganda filled bullshit opinions mean absolutely nothing because the people with them choose to be stupid than a fucking rock and live outside reality. Maybe you should quit being part of the problem.
You need to go back read a little history on why Galileo was punished.
Yes, the church has been on the wrong side of a whole lot of science, but Galileo's predicament was largely his own fault, and had little to do with science. Giordano Bruno might have been a better choice for an example, although his BBQ wasn't entirely about his stance in science.
That said, the church also accepts natural selection, and when it's been faced with evidence of it's incorrectness, it does come around (eventually). The ones here on the wrong side are the ones who are being bought and paid for mouthpieces for industries that stand to lose lots of money should humanity start taking corrective action. As we've seen, the scientists who populate that side tend to have minimally connected area's of study at best, and at worst are nothing more than common people with no education in any field at all, but they just want their uneducated and ignorant opinion to be heard as loud as possible.
... but it is still a contract.
The title of this should be something along the lines of: "ESPN sues because it doesn't think Verizon is meeting it's contract." Nothing much more about it. It doesn't matter what anyone else really thinks... if the two of them entered a contract, then both sides are legally required to oblige by it.
I think you need to go back and learn a little history, instead of relying on the spoon-fed-from-a-fucking-right-wing-insurectionst bullshit you've apparently been living on. The US constitution was designed to empower the federal government because the whole "weak fed, strong states" position proved to be a complete fucking disaster in less than a decade with the confederacy... and the founding father knew that because they lived through it. Fucking idiots now who think that the "weak fed, strong states" is what the constitution is about have their heads up their ass, and are completely ignorant of American history between 1776 and 1787.
You're right in a way... the problem it trivializes is that there's a faction of people in this country who lie anytime they need to dupe idiots into a frenzy about some made up threat, and those fucking asswipes NEVER face repercussions from their lies. Grumpy pretty much hit it on the head.... it's worthless lying sacks of shit trying to influence politics (and make money). Life isn't always simple... but sometimes it is.
That's why we call it a "social science," and why real scientists point at them and laugh. The past few years we've seen some absolutely horrendous papers put out by these people who use fatally flawed methodology to set up experiments, and then come up with completely bat-shit stupid conclusions from their "research." The sad thing is, this isn't a recent thing... i remember review mags in the 80's and seeing some of the same kind of shit research. All you could do is just look around the lab and join in with everyone else shaking their heads in disbelief that anyone was so fucking clueless.
But, Geekmeister also has a point on the research itself. (good) Research is way undervalued, and the researchers tend to be overworked, under-payed, and not appreciated. I always get a good laugh at these dumbfucks who comment that climate researchers just do it for the paychecks they get form the government..... which brings us back to the phrase "so fucking clueless."
Other than Afghanistan being willing to extradite him if they were given evidence he was complicit in the crime? Here's an idea.... give the fucking Afganie gov the fucking evidence! I'd suggest that would have been a whole fucking hell of a lot better than what we did on pretty much every fucking level.. unless you're a fucking murderous sociopath that needs to be removed from society because you're a danger to everyone around you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sou...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Seriously, if all your going to do is regurgitate useless ignorant bullshit... don't bother.
Further, in the Christian churches part of the faith involves the silence of your contribution or good works.
HAHHHAHAHHHAHHHHAHHHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHHA....HAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
Sorry, you really need to tell Christians in the US that.... well... the fake christians in the US who use their "charitable givings" to boost their social status, much like they use any and every other aspect of "christianity" that they can. You can start with the politicians. And to avoid people laughing at you hysterically, you may want to inject the word "supposedly" in that line... at least once, although more might be better.
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
5b : the object of such devotion
5c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Yes, they are. The problem isn't that Mitch is wrong (because he's correct), it's that you're an AC who doesn't have the basic knowledge of what a word means, and you are adamant about making sure everyone knows you're ignorant. Take a quarter and go buy a dictionary.
Perhaps you need to do just a little hint of what actually happened then. I realize that being scared may seem like your right, but being scared because you're ignorant makes your ignorance really stand out. The FCC did EXACTLY their job, using the tools they had which WERE given to them by congress... just not the fucking asswipe, do nothing, government hating, fringe dickwads we have in there right now.
I've always preferred a hybrid explanation for the event. Prior to the whole Theia hypothesis, one of the main ideas for the moons creation was it simply accreted with Earth as a binary planet system. The Theia hypothesis (man doesn't that sound like a good name for a sci-fi book) simply started off saying there was an impact and the moon was re-coalesced around the remaining Theian core from some of the ejecta.
That required, as you alluded to, that another planet/proto-planet was just kinda wandering through our systems disk due to whatever reason, such as gravitational pull from one of the gas giants; certainly a valid possibility, but it just seemed to me that the hybrid of Theia forming in our orbital path and eventually impacting with us was an easier event to explain... more one of those "just happen to be cleaning our surroundings" than "lucky shot from the rough" type of things.
This composition analysis seems to support the dual formation in the same/near same orbit idea.
....if both planetary bodies formed in the same area of the accretion disk.
https://medium.com/@PresidentO...
The text, because this "news" article couldn't seem to post a link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
There's people even on the reddit thread pointing out that the person mentioning Snowden has no basis for the assumption. As with all things, follow the money; in a couple days if that link to "Snowden" donations turns out to be some fat fuck padding his own bank account by preying off mental midgets, i will not be surprised in the least.
From what the EO actually looks like, i'd suggest the only ones who are going to be hating it are the hackers and thieves stealing personal data.... oh, and the numbnuts who have such a kneejerk reaction of hating anything Obama does so much that if he came out in favor of breathing, they'd all hold their breaths till dead.
Remember what they say about assuming. The title of the article should be something along the lines of: "Potential con-man fleecing more anti-Obama idiots by scaring them again."
A point your leaving out, however, is that that general, and those Hezbolla fighters were headed to a Syrian outpost that the Iranians helped to build, to defend against rebels.... you know, those guys with the ever changing initials of ISIS, IS, or whichever way they go together this week. Additionally, while those more cowardly or rabid fear the "inevitable" attack of Iran against Israel, Israels attack against those fighters fighting ISIS was inside a different sovereign nation. This was not a defensive strike, it was an attack.
A lot of the rhetoric from Iran the past decade has been blown up because of poor translations, and the complete lack of ability to understand any nuanced speech at all by a certain segment of sociopath war-mongers in the US. Overall though, when you compare what Israel has done in countries other than Israel, to what Iran has done in countries other than Iran.. for the past 50 years.... Israel is by far and away more likely to start wars, although they always try to call them "defensive actions," which the gullible, or the sociopaths, gobble up.
I thought it was gong to be the best article ever when i skimmed the title: "The World Lost.... Oklahoma.... Satellite Data Show"
I believe you think my comment was an endorsement of facebook, when it was actually an assessment on the stupidity of scientology. As for the election of people unworthy to be in office, that's a given.
You have state representatives who don't have a basic understanding of the female anatomy trying to regulate women's medical treatments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
You have had others running for office that think women can magically turn off their bodies ability to become pregnant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There is a resurgence of the anti-intellectualism culture in this country, and it's being elected into positions where it can do unimaginable damage to our country. Stupid people make stupid decisions, and when those stupid people are in public office, they make stupid decisions that fuck up everyone's life. In all honesty, the Kardashian's you speak of would be less stupid than some of those who are in now (and no, that's not an endorsement of the Kardashians).
Kinda like... but makes a bit more sense.
'Ello, My name is Inigo Montoya, I may be looking for you....