Because tornadoes don't hit the same place every few years, not even every few decades unless you consider Kansas to be the same place as Kansas for this type of discussion.
To keep the guns out of Mexico, we would have to stop exporting them to the Mexican government. Do people actually believe that the cartels are walking over here and buying M-16s and full-auto Uzis and then walking them back home. It is damn difficult to buy that stuff here.
So what you are saying is that we need to trick the Mexicans into building the wall to keep people from crossing because that was the real purpose of the Berlin Wall. It really was not intended to keep people out.
Yup, we in the US are racist for wanting some form of immigration control (keeping people from crossing the border south-to-north) but the Mexicans are simply exercising their sovereignty when they actual do work to prevent north-to-south movement.
At least he is currently modded +2 while you are modded -1.
And just think if those OSS projects had also exercised some discipline with warnings and fixed them, then maybe using OSS wouldn't have to be an excuse for turning off warnings.
No, it can be an imminent threat to anyone but judges are pretty savvy about noticing that not every single person a cop talks to is actually engaged in kidnapping and that if the accused in court for a drug offense with all the evidence gathered from a phone search based on the imminent threat of a kidnapping victim being killed but the accused is not also accused of kidnapping and nobody was ever reported to have been kidnapped, etc.
Well, the cloud, computers cell phones, etc. did not exist back the in the 1700s so the Constitution does not apply to them so obviously SCOTUS screwed the pooch big time on this. Don't believe me, just ask your friendly neighborhood liberal about how the Constitution only covers muskets and not modern firearms.
Well, maybe if the liberals weren't clamoring for them to ignore the parts they don't like and would stop trying to convince everyone that the Constitution only applies to things that existed at the time of its writing, then they could make some headway in this area.
Not one single bit because most people (the other x billion of us) don't waste energy trying to extract some form of revenge in such a useless manner as what you just described.
Which is why the habitat turns into a decompression chamber for a 17 hour cycle at the end of the stay at the bottom. This would basically get the "residents" back to Group A and then they can use the airlock to get into the pool then exit the habitat and surface just as if they had started that final dive from the surface.
Do you actually have a rational explanation for how global warming is responsible for the shifting of the magnetic field. All kinds of evidence exists to show that the field has shifted and reversed many times in the past and I have never read a single article linking any of this with any of the previous warming trends.
They turn a profit because they get paid to use their "raw" materials. Other "mining" operations manage to turn a profit while having to pay to get raw materials.
Because he is not smart enough to figure out the difference between a corporation engaging in the media and a media corporation? That's okay, SCOTUS couldn't do it either because they decided that there was no difference.
It currently is not a decision by the "big two" parties. It is a decision by those airing the debates. The big two have said they won't participate if all the fringe candidates are included and the broadcasters have decided that a debate without the big two is not worth the effort. Spend the money to make it worth their effort. That is a hell of a lot more palatable than having the government control all the information.
Shhh. You might led some poor unsuspecting "voter" to think that maybe money does not buy elections and that maybe Lessig has a slightly different agenda than publicly stated.
And the only group saying that "corporations are people" are liberal groups and liberal politicians. The conservative and libertarian side have ever only made the claim that the people organizing into groups, even if they incorporate for the purposes of money-management, do not lose that right. In other words, the corporation they formed is allowed to enter into contracts to produce and distribute advertising or books or movies instead of having to have 1,000 or 1,000,000 individuals sign the contracts and send in that many individual checks and such.
Regardless of what China claims, the US is a constitutional republic. It basically means we have a constitution that defines the role of our government and that we elect representatives to vote on laws for us. Amazing that words have actual meaning, isn't it? And that the meaning need not change just because a dictatorship chooses to misuse those words in describing itself.
Yes, he 1st amendment was the only thing that prevented the government from shutting down that documentary dn yet, many on hear use that decision as the very reason why we need to alter the 1st amendment. Never mind that the most recent appointee to SCOTUS argued during the hearing that the government already was allowed to do just that (more specifically, prevent the publication of a book the administration deemed undesirable based on political content oriented at itself or a candidate for federal office).
Yes, you will allow them to say it in private all they want. Saying it in public, where it really matters, is what you have a problem with.
Or George Soros or Michael Bloomberg or Warren Buffet each, individually, spending more on anti-gun lobbying and advertising than 4 million citizens combined? As many have asked previously, why do you liberals ever only complain about one side of the spectrum doing this?
Yes, they are allowed to debate on TV as long as they are willing to pay for the privilege just like the D and R candidates do. There is absolutely no law or regulation preventing it. A private organization pays for all that and has established its rules. All other candidates are currently allowed to join forces and organize all the debates they desire. If the public wants to watch them, the networks will air them.
Slashdot Mirror
Because tornadoes don't hit the same place every few years, not even every few decades unless you consider Kansas to be the same place as Kansas for this type of discussion.
To keep the guns out of Mexico, we would have to stop exporting them to the Mexican government. Do people actually believe that the cartels are walking over here and buying M-16s and full-auto Uzis and then walking them back home. It is damn difficult to buy that stuff here.
So what you are saying is that we need to trick the Mexicans into building the wall to keep people from crossing because that was the real purpose of the Berlin Wall. It really was not intended to keep people out.
Yup, we in the US are racist for wanting some form of immigration control (keeping people from crossing the border south-to-north) but the Mexicans are simply exercising their sovereignty when they actual do work to prevent north-to-south movement.
At least he is currently modded +2 while you are modded -1.
And just think if those OSS projects had also exercised some discipline with warnings and fixed them, then maybe using OSS wouldn't have to be an excuse for turning off warnings.
maybe you should find better managers to work for.
No, it can be an imminent threat to anyone but judges are pretty savvy about noticing that not every single person a cop talks to is actually engaged in kidnapping and that if the accused in court for a drug offense with all the evidence gathered from a phone search based on the imminent threat of a kidnapping victim being killed but the accused is not also accused of kidnapping and nobody was ever reported to have been kidnapped, etc.
Well, the cloud, computers cell phones, etc. did not exist back the in the 1700s so the Constitution does not apply to them so obviously SCOTUS screwed the pooch big time on this. Don't believe me, just ask your friendly neighborhood liberal about how the Constitution only covers muskets and not modern firearms.
Well, maybe if the liberals weren't clamoring for them to ignore the parts they don't like and would stop trying to convince everyone that the Constitution only applies to things that existed at the time of its writing, then they could make some headway in this area.
But the knowledge that it existed did come from the commercial ad (at least you described it that way) so the commercial ad didn't influence you.
Not one single bit because most people (the other x billion of us) don't waste energy trying to extract some form of revenge in such a useless manner as what you just described.
Which is why the habitat turns into a decompression chamber for a 17 hour cycle at the end of the stay at the bottom. This would basically get the "residents" back to Group A and then they can use the airlock to get into the pool then exit the habitat and surface just as if they had started that final dive from the surface.
Do you actually have a rational explanation for how global warming is responsible for the shifting of the magnetic field. All kinds of evidence exists to show that the field has shifted and reversed many times in the past and I have never read a single article linking any of this with any of the previous warming trends.
Who is now talking out of their ass?
They turn a profit because they get paid to use their "raw" materials. Other "mining" operations manage to turn a profit while having to pay to get raw materials.
Because he is not smart enough to figure out the difference between a corporation engaging in the media and a media corporation? That's okay, SCOTUS couldn't do it either because they decided that there was no difference.
It currently is not a decision by the "big two" parties. It is a decision by those airing the debates. The big two have said they won't participate if all the fringe candidates are included and the broadcasters have decided that a debate without the big two is not worth the effort. Spend the money to make it worth their effort. That is a hell of a lot more palatable than having the government control all the information.
Which is why people join and donate to the organizations that promote the ideas they want promoted. So that they can collectively have a voice.
And your solution is to prevent exactly that from happening. Thanks for looking out for us.
So you plan to restrict political speech exactly when it may matter most? Awesome way to respect our rights.
Shhh. You might led some poor unsuspecting "voter" to think that maybe money does not buy elections and that maybe Lessig has a slightly different agenda than publicly stated.
And the only group saying that "corporations are people" are liberal groups and liberal politicians. The conservative and libertarian side have ever only made the claim that the people organizing into groups, even if they incorporate for the purposes of money-management, do not lose that right. In other words, the corporation they formed is allowed to enter into contracts to produce and distribute advertising or books or movies instead of having to have 1,000 or 1,000,000 individuals sign the contracts and send in that many individual checks and such.
Regardless of what China claims, the US is a constitutional republic. It basically means we have a constitution that defines the role of our government and that we elect representatives to vote on laws for us. Amazing that words have actual meaning, isn't it? And that the meaning need not change just because a dictatorship chooses to misuse those words in describing itself.
Yes, he 1st amendment was the only thing that prevented the government from shutting down that documentary dn yet, many on hear use that decision as the very reason why we need to alter the 1st amendment. Never mind that the most recent appointee to SCOTUS argued during the hearing that the government already was allowed to do just that (more specifically, prevent the publication of a book the administration deemed undesirable based on political content oriented at itself or a candidate for federal office).
And one of those services you buy is "spreading the word" or speech if you will.
Yes, you will allow them to say it in private all they want. Saying it in public, where it really matters, is what you have a problem with.
Or George Soros or Michael Bloomberg or Warren Buffet each, individually, spending more on anti-gun lobbying and advertising than 4 million citizens combined? As many have asked previously, why do you liberals ever only complain about one side of the spectrum doing this?
Yes, they are allowed to debate on TV as long as they are willing to pay for the privilege just like the D and R candidates do. There is absolutely no law or regulation preventing it. A private organization pays for all that and has established its rules. All other candidates are currently allowed to join forces and organize all the debates they desire. If the public wants to watch them, the networks will air them.