No, it a very well thought out document that very much defines the social contract and legal framework in the United States of America. To ignore it is to say that the law is whatever anyone says it is. For you liberals that like things as hey are now, wait a few years and "anyone" might be extremely ruthless and dislike liberals very much. If the constitution is simply "a stupid piece of paper" and means nothing, then said ruthless person could actually kill all liberals with no consequences until someone even more ruthless steps up.
and yet we are mostly (as a society) willing to ignore the fact that email is the same as postal mail in the same sense that phone calls are or the fact I pay somebody to store my data on their hard-drive is not the same as my paying a bank to store papers in their vault.
When starting with "Given that humans are a major cataclysm..." it is easy to make that argument.
Start with the opposite statement (and belief) and it becomes much more difficult.
Personally, I believe that every person who believes humans a "virus" or "plague" or what have you, should stop being hypocritical and remove themselves so they are no longer a plague upon the earth.
Correct. Professional photographers will make better pictures than amateurs, almost always.
However, we seem to be talking about a party bus where the environment is not exactly conducive to anybody actually wanting professional pictures. People just want some random shots of themselves and their buddies being idiots.
The 2nd amendment can be interpreted in no other way than to mean that private citizens have the right to own, carry and use firearms for sport and self-defense. The writings of those who penned it are very clear about this.
The "Founding Fathers" (the ones who wrote the constitution and the first amendments) wrote enough that it is very easy even today to easily understand that they differentiated between arms and ordnance. Arms to them were muskets and such; the weapons normally carried by a soldier. Ordnance was the canons and mortars. Translating that today would mean that arms are not limited to semi-auto weapons such as AR-15s and Colt 1911 derivatives, etc. but would also include M-16s and their.30 caliber cousins and.50 caliber rifles such as the Barret M82. The M2 would probably be considered ordnance. Mortars, artillery, bombs and missiles are ordnance. Anyone trying to claim that the 2nd amendment covers anything is generally just trying to take an invalid argument to an absurd extremity trying to prove that because nobody wants private ownership of atomic weapons we should also not have private ownership of big game rifles or self-defense weapons.
"stand your ground" or "castle laws" are not a new invention of the American right. They are based on rights that have existed forever. "I get to keep you from taking my stuff" is a pretty ancient and basic right.
I lock my car door every time I go anywhere. I live in a small, all-white neighborhood in a small, mostly white town and lock my doors for two reasons: Drunks have walked a mile from the bar and confused my home with theirs that is 5 miles the other direction and I want some barriers erected to the causal thief, most of whom are white around here.
The first time they were used in the Olympics it was only the Dutch and they were an unfair advantage in the same way that people are complaining about the US suits having been a possible unfair advantage or technological advantage or whatever.
The point I was trying to make is that some were complaining that the US does (find technical advantages) when in reality, all major countries do.
The Dutch introduced a radically new skate design 2 or 3 Olympics ago. Everybody uses them now. Should be considered common knowledge to anyoone commenting about such topics.
No, seriously. Scientists might do misleading things in the search for more funding? Do you have any other examples to back up such a preposterous statement.
giving tax breaks to those supporting more kids is not nearly as problematic as just giving money to people who have more kids than they can support. The US tax-code uses the orwellian name "Earned-Income Credits".
Or the more currently relevant example of nature creating two-legged mammals that learned to use tools and build pollution spewing factories and such. Nothing more than nature polluting itself unless you believe in creationism.
If out natural comforts were magically provided for, my wife and I would be more likely to engage in activities that lead to having children. People having so much that sex is no longer interesting sounds pretty dystopian to me.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it a very well thought out document that very much defines the social contract and legal framework in the United States of America. To ignore it is to say that the law is whatever anyone says it is. For you liberals that like things as hey are now, wait a few years and "anyone" might be extremely ruthless and dislike liberals very much. If the constitution is simply "a stupid piece of paper" and means nothing, then said ruthless person could actually kill all liberals with no consequences until someone even more ruthless steps up.
What a moronic statement.
and yet we are mostly (as a society) willing to ignore the fact that email is the same as postal mail in the same sense that phone calls are or the fact I pay somebody to store my data on their hard-drive is not the same as my paying a bank to store papers in their vault.
You're right. I should have said "honestly interpreted."
"Friends don't really give a shit about each other," says the Google Glasses owner.
When starting with "Given that humans are a major cataclysm..." it is easy to make that argument.
Start with the opposite statement (and belief) and it becomes much more difficult.
Personally, I believe that every person who believes humans a "virus" or "plague" or what have you, should stop being hypocritical and remove themselves so they are no longer a plague upon the earth.
Correct. Professional photographers will make better pictures than amateurs, almost always.
However, we seem to be talking about a party bus where the environment is not exactly conducive to anybody actually wanting professional pictures. People just want some random shots of themselves and their buddies being idiots.
The 2nd amendment can be interpreted in no other way than to mean that private citizens have the right to own, carry and use firearms for sport and self-defense. The writings of those who penned it are very clear about this.
The "Founding Fathers" (the ones who wrote the constitution and the first amendments) wrote enough that it is very easy even today to easily understand that they differentiated between arms and ordnance. Arms to them were muskets and such; the weapons normally carried by a soldier. Ordnance was the canons and mortars. Translating that today would mean that arms are not limited to semi-auto weapons such as AR-15s and Colt 1911 derivatives, etc. but would also include M-16s and their .30 caliber cousins and .50 caliber rifles such as the Barret M82. The M2 would probably be considered ordnance. Mortars, artillery, bombs and missiles are ordnance. Anyone trying to claim that the 2nd amendment covers anything is generally just trying to take an invalid argument to an absurd extremity trying to prove that because nobody wants private ownership of atomic weapons we should also not have private ownership of big game rifles or self-defense weapons.
"stand your ground" or "castle laws" are not a new invention of the American right. They are based on rights that have existed forever. "I get to keep you from taking my stuff" is a pretty ancient and basic right.
I lock my car door every time I go anywhere. I live in a small, all-white neighborhood in a small, mostly white town and lock my doors for two reasons: Drunks have walked a mile from the bar and confused my home with theirs that is 5 miles the other direction and I want some barriers erected to the causal thief, most of whom are white around here.
It has nothing to do with color.
"not a metric unit"
How can you possibly reach that conclusion? It seems to be used to measure things all the time.
The IPv4 shortage is almost as real as peak oil, climate change and whatever other shortage experts are harping about.
The first time they were used in the Olympics it was only the Dutch and they were an unfair advantage in the same way that people are complaining about the US suits having been a possible unfair advantage or technological advantage or whatever.
The point I was trying to make is that some were complaining that the US does (find technical advantages) when in reality, all major countries do.
The Dutch introduced a radically new skate design 2 or 3 Olympics ago. Everybody uses them now. Should be considered common knowledge to anyoone commenting about such topics.
That we train and then send home to compete for their home country? Those foreign athletes? How exactly do they raise our medal count?
Kind of like skates that couldn't be copied by other countries? Oh wait, that wasn't the US so it never happened, right?
You are complaining that it is unrealistic that a teenage girl would be excited about getting the exact make and model of her dreams?
iWorld
No, seriously. Scientists might do misleading things in the search for more funding? Do you have any other examples to back up such a preposterous statement.
Except that astrology and its relatives are heavily promoted by many of our currrent "Gods" (hollywood types).
Just because he likes to think he (or his country) is superior to the US, does not mean that he is not "a special, unique snowflake."
I happen to believe that many things about the US are superior and believe that I am unique while realizing that not everything about me is unique,
From what I've read, there might be more to the story than "Victim refused to put phone down so perp shot him."
giving tax breaks to those supporting more kids is not nearly as problematic as just giving money to people who have more kids than they can support. The US tax-code uses the orwellian name "Earned-Income Credits".
Or the more currently relevant example of nature creating two-legged mammals that learned to use tools and build pollution spewing factories and such. Nothing more than nature polluting itself unless you believe in creationism.
If out natural comforts were magically provided for, my wife and I would be more likely to engage in activities that lead to having children. People having so much that sex is no longer interesting sounds pretty dystopian to me.