"Marxist socialism is working for the betterment of the people, whereas national socialism is working for the betterment of the state (and part of building a strong national identity and pride.) Marxism might stress individual liberties with a collective identity, whereas national socialism is strictly a collective."
So Mao and Lenin were actually against Marx? Exactly what individual liberties were they championing?
You mean we would never just ignore the existing procedural rules about how to modify the procedural rules in order to change a procedural rule to make it easier to pass any law we want to? Nah, we would never do that sort of thing over here. After all, Hitler did that sort of thing.
So. not a single Canadian has ever used any health care facility in the US because the Canadian ones were too backed up? Your system almost handles the base load but you (your country) use the US system as a fallback quite regularly.
Of course not... They have a reporter facing jail for not revealing sources that helped her break the story on how mentally deranged the Aurora theater shooter was but investigative reporting like that no clearly longer counts as journalism (in your own words). My guess is that want counts as journalism in your book is blathering on about how tingly certain politicians make your extremities.
As many others have already asked... How did the any Republican run state sabotage the laws by simply following the law? If Pelosi, Obey and Obama had not wanted the states to be able to not provide their own exchanges, they could have found other ways to penalize (entice) them.
"one can go to prison for life for burglary, mugging, possessing a firearm, or murder." Only the last one generally gets you there (for life) on the first offense. The second one only results in incarceration if you've previously been convicted of something else or by using it to commit something else. Or it should be that way. Some less enlightened jurisdictions get irrational in regards to those lifeless little machines and worry about their mesmerizing, mind-controlling effects on people.
Actually, the US used to have quite a few weather stations in very remote locations. They have nearly all been shut down now because we can just "fill in the gaps" with models.
In other words, the climate science community recommended removing the only hope in the US of actually verifying temperature changes over the last 50 years that does not involve fudging the numbers via some model to account for buildings and concrete and pavement, etc.
We should not need models to tell us what the change has been over the past fifteen years. We have not produced anything that more accurately measures temperature in that time frame.
And the error band always includes "no change" but the media and most leftist/liberal/anti-denier/whatever jump all over the high end and promote it as if there is no band while also claiming that "the scientists said so."
So, it is EVIL for the US government to take a gander at who calls whom but you are fine with them forcing you to be celibate or you or your sexual partners to have abortions or be sterilized?
Citizens United said that a group of Citizens who form a corporation for the purpose of pooling their money (as required by federal law) in order to make political speech cannot be prevented from using that money to make political speech.
It also pointed out the hypocrisy of someone like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow complaining about corporations like Citizens United or Rolls Royce being allowed to make political speech when they are (were at the time) being paid by a corporation that directly competes with Rolls Royce in one business area to make political speech.
Seems like the "noxious waste" is mostly sand. As for dumping it, it will most likely end up back where it came from. Major environmental disaster there.
Yeah, keep reiterating that tired lie until you actually start to believe it. Please post a link to any Supreme Court case which makes this statement true and quote the relevant sections.
I've driven and ridden on the autobahns in Germany and whatever they call them in Italy. Their is routinely traffic at a great variety of speeds so your example of how it is safe is also an example of why you claim it is reckless. So which one are you really claiming it to be?
Back in the 1980's, the speed limits in Italy were based on the displacement of the engine: the larger the engine the faster you were allowed to go. At least on the freeway in the region around Milan. The posted limits varied by a factor of 3 from slowest to fastest so the law there was setting up the exact situation this guy was in.
Physics tells us that the an accident will be worse at higher speeds but for every study that says higher speeds result in more deaths or more accidents there is a study that says the opposite.
You (or someone) have actually performed a controlled experiment that started with a population of fish and ended with a population of mammals? That would be proving that evolution is why humans exist. Showing that bacterial colonies change over time doesn't really count as you only have different bacteria than what you started with, you don't have mammals. And showing that bacterial colonies will change over time only means that the experiment failed to prove that a bacterial colony can't change and that the possibility still exists that bacteria could change even more. A possibility is not proof.
Slashdot Mirror
"Marxist socialism is working for the betterment of the people, whereas national socialism is working for the betterment of the state (and part of building a strong national identity and pride.) Marxism might stress individual liberties with a collective identity, whereas national socialism is strictly a collective."
So Mao and Lenin were actually against Marx? Exactly what individual liberties were they championing?
You mean we would never just ignore the existing procedural rules about how to modify the procedural rules in order to change a procedural rule to make it easier to pass any law we want to? Nah, we would never do that sort of thing over here. After all, Hitler did that sort of thing.
So. not a single Canadian has ever used any health care facility in the US because the Canadian ones were too backed up? Your system almost handles the base load but you (your country) use the US system as a fallback quite regularly.
Of course not... They have a reporter facing jail for not revealing sources that helped her break the story on how mentally deranged the Aurora theater shooter was but investigative reporting like that no clearly longer counts as journalism (in your own words). My guess is that want counts as journalism in your book is blathering on about how tingly certain politicians make your extremities.
As many others have already asked... How did the any Republican run state sabotage the laws by simply following the law? If Pelosi, Obey and Obama had not wanted the states to be able to not provide their own exchanges, they could have found other ways to penalize (entice) them.
"one can go to prison for life for burglary, mugging, possessing a firearm, or murder." Only the last one generally gets you there (for life) on the first offense. The second one only results in incarceration if you've previously been convicted of something else or by using it to commit something else. Or it should be that way. Some less enlightened jurisdictions get irrational in regards to those lifeless little machines and worry about their mesmerizing, mind-controlling effects on people.
Actually, the US used to have quite a few weather stations in very remote locations. They have nearly all been shut down now because we can just "fill in the gaps" with models.
In other words, the climate science community recommended removing the only hope in the US of actually verifying temperature changes over the last 50 years that does not involve fudging the numbers via some model to account for buildings and concrete and pavement, etc.
We should not need models to tell us what the change has been over the past fifteen years. We have not produced anything that more accurately measures temperature in that time frame.
"And we, as human, affect climate SO radically that we don't even needed a century to have an impact on the climate."
At least, some people make that assertion but we don't really know.
And the error band always includes "no change" but the media and most leftist/liberal/anti-denier/whatever jump all over the high end and promote it as if there is no band while also claiming that "the scientists said so."
Assert.IsTrue("More guns" == "More deaths");
Output: Test failed
So, it is EVIL for the US government to take a gander at who calls whom but you are fine with them forcing you to be celibate or you or your sexual partners to have abortions or be sterilized?
Watching me bad.
Literally invading my body good.
That is some really messed up thinking.
I'd be ecstatic to pay an 8 cent sales tax on every trip through the checkout lane.
A) says that you did not, in that one case you cited, actually refuse to give the password.
Most employers in the US "pay up" on a bi-weekly basis.
The fossil record is nowhere near that complete and only a moron or a conman would claim it is.
No, but thanks for trying and failing,
Citizens United said that a group of Citizens who form a corporation for the purpose of pooling their money (as required by federal law) in order to make political speech cannot be prevented from using that money to make political speech.
It also pointed out the hypocrisy of someone like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow complaining about corporations like Citizens United or Rolls Royce being allowed to make political speech when they are (were at the time) being paid by a corporation that directly competes with Rolls Royce in one business area to make political speech.
Seems like the "noxious waste" is mostly sand. As for dumping it, it will most likely end up back where it came from. Major environmental disaster there.
If you aren't using a computer that has absolutely no plastics then congratulations. Otherwise, thanks for being a hypocrite.
Yeah, keep reiterating that tired lie until you actually start to believe it. Please post a link to any Supreme Court case which makes this statement true and quote the relevant sections.
Depends on the prison.
I've driven and ridden on the autobahns in Germany and whatever they call them in Italy. Their is routinely traffic at a great variety of speeds so your example of how it is safe is also an example of why you claim it is reckless. So which one are you really claiming it to be?
Back in the 1980's, the speed limits in Italy were based on the displacement of the engine: the larger the engine the faster you were allowed to go. At least on the freeway in the region around Milan. The posted limits varied by a factor of 3 from slowest to fastest so the law there was setting up the exact situation this guy was in.
Physics tells us that the an accident will be worse at higher speeds but for every study that says higher speeds result in more deaths or more accidents there is a study that says the opposite.
Nearly three times the speed of other vehicles? 98 is 3 times 33. I didn't notice that his route was entirely within city or town business districts.
You (or someone) have actually performed a controlled experiment that started with a population of fish and ended with a population of mammals? That would be proving that evolution is why humans exist. Showing that bacterial colonies change over time doesn't really count as you only have different bacteria than what you started with, you don't have mammals. And showing that bacterial colonies will change over time only means that the experiment failed to prove that a bacterial colony can't change and that the possibility still exists that bacteria could change even more. A possibility is not proof.