I just don't get why people are so intolerant of what other people think and believe. The "evolutionists" consider themselves smarter than the "creationists" and yet they display a shameful lack of compassion or a desire to positively engage in a respectful debate. Perhaps the "creationists" are equally intolerant and that serves as some kind of justification for the shameful comport of the self-proclaimed wiser set?
Pulled out of Hanmity's ass? You're a moron. Those events are historical facts, all of which I've lived through.
Your list of "American crimes" is unrelated and no justification for Iran's offenses.
The disposition of the Shah and the institution of the UK's choice was the UK's matter, not the US. And the prick got what he deserved for signing up with Hitler at the start of WWII. You do know that Hitler named Iran, getting them to drop Persia? Right you ignorant kid? Take the dirt out of your ears, STFU, and open your eyes. Try to learn.
You mean like when they tried to kill diplomats on US soil?
Or do you mean like when they kidnapped the US embassy staff in '80? (was that 1980?)
Or do you mean like when their guys in Lebanon attacked the barracks and killed a couple hundred marines?
Or do you mean like when they arrested 3 stupid US hikers and held them for ransom?
Or like when they arrested, tried, and sentenced to death a US citizen (of Iranian ethnicity) for spying?
Or like when their soldiers launch rockets into Israel every day hoping to cause loss of life and significant property damage?
Or like the constant supply of IEDs and training to their soldiers in Iraq to kill our soldiers?
Or something else, like blowing up buildings, cars, transport, ships, people on the street and on military bases? (Other recent terrorist attack examples, which I don't intend to blame on Iran.)
Here are some possible reasons why the Commerce Secretary was left unguarded:
1. The cost to protect him was greater than the cost to replace him.
2. Like the Navy's capital ship theory, the loss of a low level cabinet secretary might be a good indicator that a state of hostilities exist. This might also be called the canary in a coal mine approach.
3. If you make all the targets hard to kill, even the low value ones, then assassins will target higher value targets (Obama, Pinetta, Clinton). So leaving this guy in the open actually enhances the safety of everyone higher up in the order or succession.
4. Apparently, this guy was easy to replace in his cabinet post. Perhaps no one considered him to be of any value (much like #1, above).
5. Can you protect someone that tries to ditch you? Doesn't it take some cooperation from the protected person to be successful?
6. If you are protecting someone that has a mental breakdown, and becomes uncooperative, what can you do short of arresting and restraining them?
Democracy at the lowest possible (aka smallest population size) is the only form that really works. But I bet this city is a republic which elects a city council that makes these kind of decisions and policies.
I might think it is a stupid policy, but it doesn't affect me and it doesn't matter what I think. Or you. Unless you live there. And if you live there and you don't like the policy grow a pair and organize to do something about it.
Apparently, based on this case, it's not a rule they feel too strongly about. If it was they would have a standard clause in their contracts jamming the requirement on their suppliers and they would have forced a refund via the courts.
So maybe the time is ripe for some sanity to reign?
Starting with the Microsoft Connect thing that's watching, and thanks to Flame, transmitting, everything you and your gay lover are doing in your living room.
"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Hire and assign a programmer to each sales guy. Split the sales comp between them. The sales guy does the glad handing. The tech guy talks tech to the customers.
From the customer's perspective, it doesn't hurt to ask. Likely he knows he's putting you in a box and making a ridiculous request to see what the vendor will say. The vendor should reply with a price for limited support to the customer's original requirements (not new requests) for a limited period of time, with some agreeable payment terms. The vendor doesn't have to refuse or get a lawyer. Just negotiate.
Hopefully, you know little or nothing about me. Hopefully, a person's socio-economic situation does not drive the merits of their points of view and discussions. I think it's ridiculous to assume that anyone that you label as "well off" must have a bias against Chavez. Indeed, many people that are thought to be rich seem to have left-wing (pick your work: liberal, progressive, socialist...) leanings and opinions.
I have no doubt that Chavez will have a better idea of what he's up against than I. He'd be dead already otherwise. This in reference both to his tight-lipped health circumstances and his country's "politics" (in quotes because I doubt the correct association of politics and paramilitary force and the currently popular threats of a pending military coup there.)
He looks to me like a simply bully who is sitting on a pile of money thanks to his country's oil wealth. He's transferring that wealth to his supporters and to the citizens. I don't view that transfer as bad, but I don't view it as smart since it's not a long term benefit for Venezuelans.
Birth certificate nuts? Fox News? What does that have to do with the price of bullets in Caracas?
For that matter, what do any of your points have to do with the confiscation of guns in Venezuela ahead of the elections and in the face of the paramilitary force that Chavez has armed? The place appears to be setting itself up for the coup or a civil war. The question is, how that will benefit Chavez staying in power?
Answer: Can you say "Emergency Powers"? Never let a good emergency go to waste. And if there isn't one, feel free to manufacture one...
But the liberal minority of the court has expressed a willingness to revisit that law
That's the trouble with liberals. They are always ready to revisit SCOTUS decisions. But when a new nominee is presented for confirmation they all start screaming about the importance of stare decisis in fear that the court might revisit a decision the liberals all love. Specifically, Roe v. Wade.
Is a card laid played or not? (That's a rant in the form of a question. It's not a question.)
And it's always funny to read the comments about freedom and laws from the loud mouthed UK crowd who dont even have a constitution and have lived in a totolitarian state for over a thousand years.
Just because people don't have the same education as you or have different beliefs than you does not make them morons. Others likely look upon you similarly.
Lots of people vote in elections. Even if they can't read. Or they don't have degrees in economics. Or they belong to unions. Or they believe in the first amendment and think the press is free. Or they think illegal search and seizure doesn't happen. Or they do.
Perhaps you'd rather pass laws that only permit people you approve of should have the right to vote? Or you'd rather just have a king with all the rights and none for the benefit of the subjects?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should start with clean water? What a bunch of morons. What happened with this basic right before 1970?
I think the French would argue that the white flag has served them equally well.
More likely Chicago.
I just don't get why people are so intolerant of what other people think and believe. The "evolutionists" consider themselves smarter than the "creationists" and yet they display a shameful lack of compassion or a desire to positively engage in a respectful debate. Perhaps the "creationists" are equally intolerant and that serves as some kind of justification for the shameful comport of the self-proclaimed wiser set?
Pulled out of Hanmity's ass? You're a moron. Those events are historical facts, all of which I've lived through.
Your list of "American crimes" is unrelated and no justification for Iran's offenses.
The disposition of the Shah and the institution of the UK's choice was the UK's matter, not the US. And the prick got what he deserved for signing up with Hitler at the start of WWII. You do know that Hitler named Iran, getting them to drop Persia? Right you ignorant kid? Take the dirt out of your ears, STFU, and open your eyes. Try to learn.
You mean like when they tried to kill diplomats on US soil?
Or do you mean like when they kidnapped the US embassy staff in '80? (was that 1980?)
Or do you mean like when their guys in Lebanon attacked the barracks and killed a couple hundred marines?
Or do you mean like when they arrested 3 stupid US hikers and held them for ransom?
Or like when they arrested, tried, and sentenced to death a US citizen (of Iranian ethnicity) for spying?
Or like when their soldiers launch rockets into Israel every day hoping to cause loss of life and significant property damage?
Or like the constant supply of IEDs and training to their soldiers in Iraq to kill our soldiers?
Or something else, like blowing up buildings, cars, transport, ships, people on the street and on military bases? (Other recent terrorist attack examples, which I don't intend to blame on Iran.)
Here are some possible reasons why the Commerce Secretary was left unguarded:
1. The cost to protect him was greater than the cost to replace him.
2. Like the Navy's capital ship theory, the loss of a low level cabinet secretary might be a good indicator that a state of hostilities exist. This might also be called the canary in a coal mine approach.
3. If you make all the targets hard to kill, even the low value ones, then assassins will target higher value targets (Obama, Pinetta, Clinton). So leaving this guy in the open actually enhances the safety of everyone higher up in the order or succession.
4. Apparently, this guy was easy to replace in his cabinet post. Perhaps no one considered him to be of any value (much like #1, above).
5. Can you protect someone that tries to ditch you? Doesn't it take some cooperation from the protected person to be successful?
6. If you are protecting someone that has a mental breakdown, and becomes uncooperative, what can you do short of arresting and restraining them?
I think it is likely that you are trying to mislead us.
Democracy at the lowest possible (aka smallest population size) is the only form that really works. But I bet this city is a republic which elects a city council that makes these kind of decisions and policies.
I might think it is a stupid policy, but it doesn't affect me and it doesn't matter what I think. Or you. Unless you live there. And if you live there and you don't like the policy grow a pair and organize to do something about it.
Apparently, based on this case, it's not a rule they feel too strongly about. If it was they would have a standard clause in their contracts jamming the requirement on their suppliers and they would have forced a refund via the courts.
So maybe the time is ripe for some sanity to reign?
This comment is obviously racist and unrelated to the topic.
Starting with the Microsoft Connect thing that's watching, and thanks to Flame, transmitting, everything you and your gay lover are doing in your living room.
It is "duct".
"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Hire and assign a programmer to each sales guy. Split the sales comp between them. The sales guy does the glad handing. The tech guy talks tech to the customers.
First I've heard that bit of science. Good to know.
So if a drink is sweetened with sucrose is there no tax then?
How about those "sweetened" with artificial sweeteners?
Let's just go on as usual and see what happens.
Kentucky is a proper noun and so, is spelled with a leading capital letter, you bigot.
http://www.khanacademy.org/search?page_search_query=chemistry
Didn't prevent it in my dad.
From the customer's perspective, it doesn't hurt to ask. Likely he knows he's putting you in a box and making a ridiculous request to see what the vendor will say. The vendor should reply with a price for limited support to the customer's original requirements (not new requests) for a limited period of time, with some agreeable payment terms. The vendor doesn't have to refuse or get a lawyer. Just negotiate.
Hopefully, you know little or nothing about me. Hopefully, a person's socio-economic situation does not drive the merits of their points of view and discussions. I think it's ridiculous to assume that anyone that you label as "well off" must have a bias against Chavez. Indeed, many people that are thought to be rich seem to have left-wing (pick your work: liberal, progressive, socialist...) leanings and opinions.
I have no doubt that Chavez will have a better idea of what he's up against than I. He'd be dead already otherwise. This in reference both to his tight-lipped health circumstances and his country's "politics" (in quotes because I doubt the correct association of politics and paramilitary force and the currently popular threats of a pending military coup there.)
He looks to me like a simply bully who is sitting on a pile of money thanks to his country's oil wealth. He's transferring that wealth to his supporters and to the citizens. I don't view that transfer as bad, but I don't view it as smart since it's not a long term benefit for Venezuelans.
Birth certificate nuts? Fox News? What does that have to do with the price of bullets in Caracas?
For that matter, what do any of your points have to do with the confiscation of guns in Venezuela ahead of the elections and in the face of the paramilitary force that Chavez has armed? The place appears to be setting itself up for the coup or a civil war. The question is, how that will benefit Chavez staying in power?
Answer: Can you say "Emergency Powers"? Never let a good emergency go to waste. And if there isn't one, feel free to manufacture one...
But the liberal minority of the court has expressed a willingness to revisit that law
That's the trouble with liberals. They are always ready to revisit SCOTUS decisions. But when a new nominee is presented for confirmation they all start screaming about the importance of stare decisis in fear that the court might revisit a decision the liberals all love. Specifically, Roe v. Wade.
Is a card laid played or not? (That's a rant in the form of a question. It's not a question.)
And it's always funny to read the comments about freedom and laws from the loud mouthed UK crowd who dont even have a constitution and have lived in a totolitarian state for over a thousand years.
Booth was a patriot? Is an assassin properly called a patriot or more properly a spy?
Wikipedia has porn? Thanks for the lead.
What a complete incompetent he is.
Just because people don't have the same education as you or have different beliefs than you does not make them morons. Others likely look upon you similarly.
Lots of people vote in elections. Even if they can't read. Or they don't have degrees in economics. Or they belong to unions. Or they believe in the first amendment and think the press is free. Or they think illegal search and seizure doesn't happen. Or they do.
Perhaps you'd rather pass laws that only permit people you approve of should have the right to vote? Or you'd rather just have a king with all the rights and none for the benefit of the subjects?