It's hard to define by design. Authoritarianism depends on murky arbitrary definitions of right and wrong, because it gives those in control of others more power to punish they're enemies and favor their friends.
Are you actually saying that people don't pool their money under capitalism? The difference is that under capitalism it is voluntary and the opportunities for graft are fewer.
I don't understand. For the sake of argument. How does an average temperature that's half a degree warmer than it was 40 years ago wipe out the Bummblebee's habitat. Do the flowers stop growing?
Pretty sure it didn't "grab him" either. Most robots in factories don't grab things. They have specialized fixture for moving specific items. He most likely was pushed and pinned.
Haven't you been paying attention? The president is above congress. The supreme court is above congress. The irs is above congress. The state department is above congress. Hillary clinton is above congress. All of the government is more powerful than the people who directly represent you. Peon.
Oh no, the horror. Someone trying to sell something has to adapt to better serve their customers. I liked the protectionist middleman system so much more.
Bullshit. The other 2500 pages were not relevant to the matter in front of the court. The reason the court even heard this case was because the law was so specific in the relevant section. If the other 2500 said the exact opposite, it would have obviously been seen as a typo, and it never would have made it to the court.
Chief Justice Roberts is correct. The intent was to improve health insurance markets. That being said, the law is an abysmal failure. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to fix laws. It is not to bail out the President or Congress. What the court did was uphold the idea of a law, and it's effect is to uphold a shitty law, that never should have been passed in the first place. Much better would have been to uphold the law as written and forced Congress to have another go.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, then what numbers represent equality? Clearly theres some sort of goal in mind. How do we know when we've achieved it?
http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...
I suppose Japan could be lumped in there too.
On the other hand, for about half the population, they are purse phones.
What purpose does diversity serve? Who determines wheen the diversity goal has been met?
I guess that's why Greece is kicking our ass economically.
It's hard to define by design. Authoritarianism depends on murky arbitrary definitions of right and wrong, because it gives those in control of others more power to punish they're enemies and favor their friends.
Bingo.
Are you actually saying that people don't pool their money under capitalism? The difference is that under capitalism it is voluntary and the opportunities for graft are fewer.
I don't understand. For the sake of argument. How does an average temperature that's half a degree warmer than it was 40 years ago wipe out the Bummblebee's habitat. Do the flowers stop growing?
Pretty sure it didn't "grab him" either. Most robots in factories don't grab things. They have specialized fixture for moving specific items. He most likely was pushed and pinned.
Haven't you been paying attention? The president is above congress. The supreme court is above congress. The irs is above congress. The state department is above congress. Hillary clinton is above congress. All of the government is more powerful than the people who directly represent you. Peon.
No, they're actually a spinning sphere that generates lift.
Oh no, the horror. Someone trying to sell something has to adapt to better serve their customers. I liked the protectionist middleman system so much more.
They didn't disrupt a market. They disrupted a racket. That's why everyone is so upset.
They did spell it out directly. Jonathan Gruber verified it. The supreme court ignored it.
At least you said pricing and not cost.
My insurance has gone up 60% since the ACA passed. It is not affordable.
Bullshit. The other 2500 pages were not relevant to the matter in front of the court. The reason the court even heard this case was because the law was so specific in the relevant section. If the other 2500 said the exact opposite, it would have obviously been seen as a typo, and it never would have made it to the court.
Chief Justice Roberts is correct. The intent was to improve health insurance markets. That being said, the law is an abysmal failure. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to fix laws. It is not to bail out the President or Congress. What the court did was uphold the idea of a law, and it's effect is to uphold a shitty law, that never should have been passed in the first place. Much better would have been to uphold the law as written and forced Congress to have another go.
It's not a theory when the conspiracy turns out to be real. This is the wrong story about which to be making conspiracy theory comments.
Could you cite that please? I'd truly like to see that.
There is a definition section of the law that defines "the state" as "one of the 50 states". That's pretty clear.
Are you being sarcastic? Because going by the language you just posted, I can not fathom how you came to that conclusion.
Oh, I see. By that logic, if you hired a hitman you would carry no culpability for the murder he commits. Got it.