...in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,'...
Damn, this is one hard-ass high school. In my high school, we voted for things like 'Best Dressed', and 'Most Likely Too Succeed". The school let something like 'brown-noser' into the yearbook? Harsh.
First, the asteroid is approximated as a spherical object 1000km in diameter (the asteroid is quoted as being the size of Texas) that splits into two equal sized hemispheres.
ALL interest groups, when looking at the metric of membership, look small as a percentage of the population. But they generally speak for a much larger group of people that believe the same thing.
And how do they make money off of the free wifi offered at the payphones?
Simple! You drop in a quarter, and it displays an access password that is good for one hour. This will allow it to possibly make some money, and keep dozens of freeloaders from using the access point.
The results indicated that alcohol, not marijuana or tobacco, was most often the first substance students tried, he said.
You mean the far easier to obtain and not illegal for adults to posses item was used first? Shocking.
the study showed that students who used alcohol exhibited a significantly greater likelihood - up to 16 times - of licit and illicit substance use.
16 times greater likelihood than... who? Nuns? Car thieves?
And then the real kicker. First sentence in the article says:
Alcohol - not marijuana - is the gateway drug that leads adolescents down the path toward more serious substances
Yet then they say:
substance use typically begins with the most socially acceptable drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes, then proceeds to marijuana use and finally to other illegal, harder drugs.
So it looks like alcohol leads to marijuana use, not hard drug use. And it looks like marijuana use leads to hard drug use, which is the opposite of what they are saying in the first sentence?
...the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives.
The middle class is still disappearing under Obama, and he is now forcing us to buy a product from businesses. Repeat after me: There is no goddamn difference between voting D or R.
The OP comment wasn't about whether GWB was good or bad, it was that things would be clearly worse with him as President vs. Obama. I'm just trying to figure out what the difference between the two is.
Bush:
*Started two wars (Iraq, Afghanistan)
*Huge deficits
*Expansion of entitlement programs
*Expansion of spying powers
Obama:
*Kept up the wars, and added a few more military campaigns
*Huge(r) deficits
*Expansion of entitlement programs
*Expansion of spying powers
Help me out here. What is the big difference between the two?
"The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide."
I'm pretty sure the store was located in the United States. Do you ever read anything that you post, or do you just hit cut and paste?
...even though the clerk's action is an example of them doing exactly that.
The store employee was not following any corporate guideline. From your own link:
The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria
Notice that those are countries, not people. It would need to say Cubans or Iranians for the store employee to be 'following the policy'. And from the article:
She said when she called corporate customer relations, an employee apologized and told her she could buy the iPad online.
Doesn't sound like corporate customer relations is following any 'policy' about discriminating against Iranians.
1. Congress says, "You must provide healthcare for everybody, whether they can pay for it or not! Aren't we so nice!"
2. Congress then bitches and moans that people are getting healthcare for free (who could have seen THAT coming?).
3. Force everybody to buy a product from a PRIVATE COMPANY to fix the problem THEY created.
Oh, and get ready for the "Everybody must buy 10 lbs. of broccoli every year because it's good for you" Act. Hey, everybody eats, and unhealthy people affect the health care system.
You think I'm kidding, but this bizarre ruling says that this would be perfectly OK for Congress to pass.
Anything that reduces the prices of tomatoes raises my standard of living, 2 "illegal" immigrants can do the same amount of work picking tomatoes as a single "legal" citizen thus reducing the price of tomatoes.
Until you have to pay higher taxes to support Bob's unemployment benefits. And your taxes need to go up to make up for the fact that Bob and your two illegal immigrants don't pay any taxes, but you still need to school the kids of these three people.
Why do you keep repeating the same irrelevant shit? I know that helping another person commit a crime is illegal. I would like some shred of proof that the government actually expects retail clerks to enforce export bans.
Not paying taxes is illegal. Speeding is illegal. Selling a legal product to a US citizen is not illegal.
Can you cite me one example or rule that retail clerks are required to try and enforce export bans? You know, like I asked several posts ago? If not, stop posting about other unrelated things.
Really? A retail clerk from Target is suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
Really? Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? Not saying whether or not you are correct, but I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
What's difficult to understand is this: Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? Really? Not saying whether or not you are correct, but I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? Not saying whether or not you are correct, but I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
...in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,'...
Damn, this is one hard-ass high school. In my high school, we voted for things like 'Best Dressed', and 'Most Likely Too Succeed". The school let something like 'brown-noser' into the yearbook? Harsh.
Pfft, I have my old Windows 0.1 Punch Cards!
First, the asteroid is approximated as a spherical object 1000km in diameter (the asteroid is quoted as being the size of Texas) that splits into two equal sized hemispheres.
Since G.W. one law or incident after another is passed against the interest of the population...
Oh, this has been going on WAAAAAAY before ol' Dubya stepped foot into the White House...
ALL interest groups, when looking at the metric of membership, look small as a percentage of the population. But they generally speak for a much larger group of people that believe the same thing.
We don't sell toys marketed to children that can easily kill them.
And what does that have to do with Buckyball Magnets, which are not marketed to small children.
And how do they make money off of the free wifi offered at the payphones?
Simple! You drop in a quarter, and it displays an access password that is good for one hour. This will allow it to possibly make some money, and keep dozens of freeloaders from using the access point.
Oh, yeah: Step 4: Profit!
The results indicated that alcohol, not marijuana or tobacco, was most often the first substance students tried, he said.
You mean the far easier to obtain and not illegal for adults to posses item was used first? Shocking.
the study showed that students who used alcohol exhibited a significantly greater likelihood - up to 16 times - of licit and illicit substance use.
16 times greater likelihood than... who? Nuns? Car thieves?
And then the real kicker. First sentence in the article says:
Alcohol - not marijuana - is the gateway drug that leads adolescents down the path toward more serious substances
Yet then they say:
substance use typically begins with the most socially acceptable drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes, then proceeds to marijuana use and finally to other illegal, harder drugs.
So it looks like alcohol leads to marijuana use, not hard drug use. And it looks like marijuana use leads to hard drug use, which is the opposite of what they are saying in the first sentence?
...the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives.
The middle class is still disappearing under Obama, and he is now forcing us to buy a product from businesses. Repeat after me: There is no goddamn difference between voting D or R.
The OP comment wasn't about whether GWB was good or bad, it was that things would be clearly worse with him as President vs. Obama. I'm just trying to figure out what the difference between the two is.
Bush:
*Started two wars (Iraq, Afghanistan)
*Huge deficits
*Expansion of entitlement programs
*Expansion of spying powers
Obama:
*Kept up the wars, and added a few more military campaigns
*Huge(r) deficits
*Expansion of entitlement programs
*Expansion of spying powers
Help me out here. What is the big difference between the two?
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that.
That is quite a strong belief system you have with no solid proof to back it up.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country.
Hmmmm.....
...which has nothing on my even funnier post that goes all the way to eleven!
I'm pretty sure the store was located in the United States. Do you ever read anything that you post, or do you just hit cut and paste?
but they don't follow the policy themselves...
Apple store clerks don't export anything.
...even though the clerk's action is an example of them doing exactly that.
The store employee was not following any corporate guideline. From your own link:
The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria
Notice that those are countries, not people. It would need to say Cubans or Iranians for the store employee to be 'following the policy'. And from the article:
She said when she called corporate customer relations, an employee apologized and told her she could buy the iPad online.
Doesn't sound like corporate customer relations is following any 'policy' about discriminating against Iranians.
Let me see if I follow:
1. Congress says, "You must provide healthcare for everybody, whether they can pay for it or not! Aren't we so nice!"
2. Congress then bitches and moans that people are getting healthcare for free (who could have seen THAT coming?).
3. Force everybody to buy a product from a PRIVATE COMPANY to fix the problem THEY created.
Oh, and get ready for the "Everybody must buy 10 lbs. of broccoli every year because it's good for you" Act. Hey, everybody eats, and unhealthy people affect the health care system.
You think I'm kidding, but this bizarre ruling says that this would be perfectly OK for Congress to pass.
Your link is not a 'company policy' for employees, it is information for the end user on what items can not be exported to what countries.
Anything that reduces the prices of tomatoes raises my standard of living, 2 "illegal" immigrants can do the same amount of work picking tomatoes as a single "legal" citizen thus reducing the price of tomatoes.
Until you have to pay higher taxes to support Bob's unemployment benefits. And your taxes need to go up to make up for the fact that Bob and your two illegal immigrants don't pay any taxes, but you still need to school the kids of these three people.
Why do you keep repeating the same irrelevant shit? I know that helping another person commit a crime is illegal. I would like some shred of proof that the government actually expects retail clerks to enforce export bans.
[snap], [snap] Hey, over here. Focus, focus.
Not paying taxes is illegal. Speeding is illegal. Selling a legal product to a US citizen is not illegal.
Can you cite me one example or rule that retail clerks are required to try and enforce export bans? You know, like I asked several posts ago? If not, stop posting about other unrelated things.
So, you can't site any source to backup your original claim? Thought so.
Really? A retail clerk from Target is suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
Really? Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? Not saying whether or not you are correct, but I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
What's difficult to understand is this: Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? Really? Not saying whether or not you are correct, but I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.
Retail clerks are suppose to know what can/cannot be exported and make a determination as to whether or not someone might export it to a country that the said clerk must know is on the 'do not export to' list? Not saying whether or not you are correct, but I'd like to see some kind of source to back that up before I believe something like that.