Maybe you like propping up dictators around the world while sucking up to Exxon Mobile, but not everybody else considers that to be economically viable.
Actually the more sucking up we do to Exxon Mobile and other non-dictator directed energy firms, the less we have to prop up dictators around the world.
Wings like those on Whitehead's craft work great for small things. Like bats, smaller birds, and UAVS. But when scaled up they are terrible to non functional. Look at birds for example. As birds get larger than a pigeon the aspect ratio of the wings change. Wings get longer and more slender. Drag becomes a larger factor as things get larger, and wings like Whitehead's have a lot of drag.
Do you get joy out of trying to portray others as less tolerant than you view yourself? So much so that you wont even read a complete post? You sit in your self defined bastion of tolerance and call others homosexual as if it's some kind of insult. What if I was? Who's the bigot here? Asshole.
First of all I'm not the one posting as an AC. Secondly, if Bush were president I highly doubt you'd be so complacent. Thirdly, Bush never assassinated a US citizen. Fourthly, in my opinion, this is and should be illegal. That is the bar the President should have to pass, in order to order a strike like this. If it is the right call, as it would have been on 9/11, congress and the senate will forgive him/her.
It seems apparent that Rand Paul, and many other Americans, don't actually understand what the drones actually are or how they work. The drones are no different to when the US uses cruise missiles launched from warships, or manned warplanes, or CIA wetwork teams to kill people in foreign countries. They're still controlled by the military, flown by actual operators.
There isn't some secret army of robots that Obama unilaterally controls which no one can stop. The only different thing which has happened is that the drones make doing something which tends to annoy other nations way easier since you don't run the risk of political blowback from a downed pilot in a foreign country.
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either. I think Senator Paul entirely understands what he's talking about. It's Eric Holder that doesn't understand that a drone strike is no different than the other methods you listed above.
While most humans are male or female, not all are, and demanding that everyone be categorized as one, or asserting that your determination as to category is better than theirs, seems pretty arrogant.
I'm not quite sure who was asserting my determination of category was better than theirs. But then again, can you imagine the problems with a fill in the blank section for this question on forms?
No, It does no such thing. It is simply a statement of fact.
Natural rights and rights of personhood are spelled out in the Constitution, it also limits the powers of government to restrict those rights. Legal rights are spelled out in legislative code.
You're the one that that just wrote 7 paragraphs about a straw-man that is nothing like what I meant by my statement. I'm not assuming or pretending anything.
I don't think there is a strong logical argument for or against same sex marriages. I think there is a strong liberal argument for same sex marriages. When I said the pp's argument fails the logic test, I mean in the logical sense, not the moral sense.
Scenario 1). Until we have a universal checkbox that says "Other", generally a hermaphrodite has to pick one. Not really an issue.
Scenario 2) I have a problem with the premise of the question. A man can have surgery to alter the genitals, and take medication to alter hormones, but at this time cannot become a woman.
But regardless of this, like I said before, we just allow citizens to marry any other citizen and the problems are solved. But let's not warp logic and science to force the issue.
Perhaps you missed the the part where I said voters don't directly control policy. At the state level there are ballot initiatives in states like California, but even there they make up a miniscule percentage of the legislative code. At the Federal level there is no such thing as direct control of policy by the citizens.
I see it as fascist, but in the true correct sense of the word. Corporations receive money (forced or otherwise) from the State, and the influence is used to make the corporations to operate in benefit of the State. The State always wields the power in a fascist political system, it uses corporations to impose its will.
Your argument fails the logic test. All Americans are equal when it comes to marriage. All citizens have the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Now that we have that out of the way, you should rephrase your argument to say that all citizens should have the legal right to marry any other citizen; equality maintained.
I am having a hard time getting my head around your response, and also icebike's post.
Democracy is a majority rules system of government, involving elections as the means of learning the will of the majority.
So, in order for the "end of democracy" to be brought about, this process of having elections and allowing the results of those elections to determine laws would have to stop.
Am I right here? End of democracy = end of voter-controlled policies?
Those are all significant problems with deomocracies. It's a good thing that we live in a republic, and voters don't directly control policy.
If the format is 4:3. Apple screwed up by rejecting a widescreen format. Watching video on an IPad stinks because all you see is the screen you paid dearly for that is filled with black pixels.
You dont need a bolt carrier to fire an AR. To simply fire one shot, you don't even need a gas system. To be honest you could clamp the barrel in a benchvise, put a round in the chamber, and close the bolt with your fingers, and strike the firing pin with a hammer. Not that I would do that, but one could. Without a gas system the bolt won't rotate and release.
Hogwash. You could build an AR out of dried Play-doh, and it would be perfectly safe until it fell apart. The only parts of an AR that need to be strong are the barrel, barrel extension, and bolt. Everything else that makes up the system is there for operation and function, rather than strength. No one is talking about printing the critical parts.
I think you have this backwards. When the government funds research and development, socializing the risk is exactly what it's doing. I am in no way advocating increased taxpayer funding of research, I am advocating the opposite.
If the Federal government were to unhook it's talons from research funding, it wouldn't be on the chopping block every time budget cuts are under consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
Restaurant: We don't like people with glasses eating here, so were going to be unfriendly to them.
People with glasses: We don't like your unfriendly ways towards people with glasses, so we won't eat at your restaurant.
Restaurant: Thanks.
Maybe you like propping up dictators around the world while sucking up to Exxon Mobile, but not everybody else considers that to be economically viable.
Actually the more sucking up we do to Exxon Mobile and other non-dictator directed energy firms, the less we have to prop up dictators around the world.
Wings like those on Whitehead's craft work great for small things. Like bats, smaller birds, and UAVS. But when scaled up they are terrible to non functional. Look at birds for example. As birds get larger than a pigeon the aspect ratio of the wings change. Wings get longer and more slender. Drag becomes a larger factor as things get larger, and wings like Whitehead's have a lot of drag.
Is that so? http://blog.rarenewspapers.com/?tag=wright-brothers
Do you get joy out of trying to portray others as less tolerant than you view yourself? So much so that you wont even read a complete post? You sit in your self defined bastion of tolerance and call others homosexual as if it's some kind of insult. What if I was? Who's the bigot here? Asshole.
First of all I'm not the one posting as an AC. Secondly, if Bush were president I highly doubt you'd be so complacent. Thirdly, Bush never assassinated a US citizen. Fourthly, in my opinion, this is and should be illegal. That is the bar the President should have to pass, in order to order a strike like this. If it is the right call, as it would have been on 9/11, congress and the senate will forgive him/her.
It seems apparent that Rand Paul, and many other Americans, don't actually understand what the drones actually are or how they work. The drones are no different to when the US uses cruise missiles launched from warships, or manned warplanes, or CIA wetwork teams to kill people in foreign countries. They're still controlled by the military, flown by actual operators.
There isn't some secret army of robots that Obama unilaterally controls which no one can stop. The only different thing which has happened is that the drones make doing something which tends to annoy other nations way easier since you don't run the risk of political blowback from a downed pilot in a foreign country.
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either. I think Senator Paul entirely understands what he's talking about. It's Eric Holder that doesn't understand that a drone strike is no different than the other methods you listed above.
Not to mentioned accepted a gift of Jewelry made from a shot-down B-52.
Commonly referred to as US Persons. Or the constitutional concept of personhood.
While most humans are male or female, not all are, and demanding that everyone be categorized as one, or asserting that your determination as to category is better than theirs, seems pretty arrogant.
I'm not quite sure who was asserting my determination of category was better than theirs. But then again, can you imagine the problems with a fill in the blank section for this question on forms?
Is there a reason you didn't quote the next sentence? I didn't realize we had to cite case law when making a syllogism.
No, It does no such thing. It is simply a statement of fact.
Natural rights and rights of personhood are spelled out in the Constitution, it also limits the powers of government to restrict those rights. Legal rights are spelled out in legislative code.
You're the one that that just wrote 7 paragraphs about a straw-man that is nothing like what I meant by my statement. I'm not assuming or pretending anything.
I don't think there is a strong logical argument for or against same sex marriages. I think there is a strong liberal argument for same sex marriages. When I said the pp's argument fails the logic test, I mean in the logical sense, not the moral sense.
Well, that's not really what I said now, is it?
Scenario 1). Until we have a universal checkbox that says "Other", generally a hermaphrodite has to pick one. Not really an issue. Scenario 2) I have a problem with the premise of the question. A man can have surgery to alter the genitals, and take medication to alter hormones, but at this time cannot become a woman. But regardless of this, like I said before, we just allow citizens to marry any other citizen and the problems are solved. But let's not warp logic and science to force the issue.
Perhaps you missed the the part where I said voters don't directly control policy. At the state level there are ballot initiatives in states like California, but even there they make up a miniscule percentage of the legislative code. At the Federal level there is no such thing as direct control of policy by the citizens.
It is pretty difficult for a civilization to propagate without opposite sex families, is it not?
I see it as fascist, but in the true correct sense of the word. Corporations receive money (forced or otherwise) from the State, and the influence is used to make the corporations to operate in benefit of the State. The State always wields the power in a fascist political system, it uses corporations to impose its will.
Your argument fails the logic test. All Americans are equal when it comes to marriage. All citizens have the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Now that we have that out of the way, you should rephrase your argument to say that all citizens should have the legal right to marry any other citizen; equality maintained.
I am having a hard time getting my head around your response, and also icebike's post.
Democracy is a majority rules system of government, involving elections as the means of learning the will of the majority.
So, in order for the "end of democracy" to be brought about, this process of having elections and allowing the results of those elections to determine laws would have to stop.
Am I right here? End of democracy = end of voter-controlled policies?
Those are all significant problems with deomocracies. It's a good thing that we live in a republic, and voters don't directly control policy.
If the format is 4:3. Apple screwed up by rejecting a widescreen format. Watching video on an IPad stinks because all you see is the screen you paid dearly for that is filled with black pixels.
You dont need a bolt carrier to fire an AR. To simply fire one shot, you don't even need a gas system. To be honest you could clamp the barrel in a benchvise, put a round in the chamber, and close the bolt with your fingers, and strike the firing pin with a hammer. Not that I would do that, but one could. Without a gas system the bolt won't rotate and release.
Hogwash. You could build an AR out of dried Play-doh, and it would be perfectly safe until it fell apart. The only parts of an AR that need to be strong are the barrel, barrel extension, and bolt. Everything else that makes up the system is there for operation and function, rather than strength. No one is talking about printing the critical parts.
I think you have this backwards. When the government funds research and development, socializing the risk is exactly what it's doing. I am in no way advocating increased taxpayer funding of research, I am advocating the opposite.
Just for clarification, who is "he"?
If the Federal government were to unhook it's talons from research funding, it wouldn't be on the chopping block every time budget cuts are under consideration.