Yes. You must be pretty young, or you'd remember a time when GM was so large that it could have bought Ford and Chrysler in the 1980's, and a country to spare. Remember what happened a few years ago? How's Kmart doing these days? Same problem, how about Sears? Oh...the same problem.
"Partisan" as in demanding that Muller's team follow the law and produce the exculpatory evidence that Muller's team MUST provide for a defense team, as to allow a full and complete defense.
I bet every time you see a meme like: "Hawaii judge orders N.Korean prisoners must remain jailed." You're really hoping it's true.
You mean besides the money from the saudis. And the money from russia, morroco, and so on(that's all from the clinton foundation email leaks). So far the only thing Mueller has is trying to cover his ass as this case collapses around him like all of his other 'high profile' cases(Enron is a really good one with every conviction overturned and a rebuke by the courts). So far, his team have tried to claim they have 'secret privilege' and don't need to disclose to the court various information. They've also illegally refused to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by law. Just to name a few things.
Well it might kill Apple, the same way it nearly killed GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda, Fiat, Nissan and so on nearly a decade ago. Those companies all nearly failed because they had accumulated massive debt due to faults in automotive loans under their own branding, which the parent company was unable to cover(aka bad credit). And before someone goes "but Ford didn't get any bailouts..." they sure did, it was under a different title application called TALF and got $2.1B more then GM did to stop insolvency.
Not to mention the moral issue of forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth. I don't think there is any other situation in which one entity has the right to the body of another. If my brother were dying, and only a transplant from me would save him, there's no legal way to make me cooperate.
And what about the moral choice that led to that pregnancy in the first place? How about the moral choice as to whether or not you have the right to kill another person. And while you're right, nobody could force you to give him that transplant. Someone would commit that self-sacrifice regardless of your own choice.
The problem is sex-selective abortion is eugenics. Abortions because the kid might have autism is eugenics, or any other genetic disorder also eugenics. You can try dressing it up in fancy words, or worded language but it's exactly that. Most of the west outlawed any form of eugenics after the horrors came to light in the 1920's. There were only a few countries that allowed it until the mid 1940's. Hell Canada was one of the first countries to outlaw it and for good reason, right besides forced sterilization of the "mentally unfit" whatever the definition that some nut decided to use to determine it.
You're forcing others to adhere to your *belief* regarding whether or not a nonviable human fetus constitutes a life.
And here you are attempting to force others to adhere to your *belief* that terminating a child because they're the wrong gender is okay? Or because they might be autistic? Come on. That's eugenics pure and simple, I realize that this was hot shit in the late 1890's and through to the 1930's in the western world, most of us grew past that. It appears that some people didn't.
It really is a tricky issue. Only morons try to simplify it.
Except it's not. 22 weeks or 194 days is where we're at when with current technology we can keep that fetus alive. In most cases, it can survive with minimal support generally only warmth and feeding. You really want to get into this argument? Well, a 1yr old sure can't survive on it's own. So we should kill it right? 5 year old? 8 year old? How about 13 years old? The chances of a child surviving on it's own without support from someone is tiny. Is that person at 22 weeks any less deserving of life then the 1yr old?
Why not try looking yourself if you want to find those sources then? It appears that even when someone gives you a source, you ignore whatever is stated. Why not go read the court transcript, it should be easy for you to find. That's the exact reasoning that Muller's team gave the judge, that they don't have to disclose because the mandate itself is "secret" and they don't have to.
Obviously, a "gas chamber". That term has some baggage.
So does "eugenics" but some people seem really in favor of killing those that might be born disabled and fighting against laws that would ban it along with sex-selective abortions.
What exactly stops someone from simply capturing and replaying that data stream?
Nothing. Now don't forget that some diseases like diabetes, lupus, MS, and so on can change the information that's used for biometrics. Retinal patterns being one of the big ones.
And if Flynn is so innocent and there's all this exculpatory evidence, why the plea bargain at all? If Mueller had been caught hiding exculpatory evidence, why hasn't the conviction been overturned?
Citation given. The reason that the plea bargain has been rejected is because directly of that. Don't forget that the guy mortgaged his house and drained his kids university funds to pay for his defense. The fact that muller has refused to disclose exculpatory evidence means that the plea was rendered in bad faith, the government MUST disclose all evidence, failing to do so is a one-way-ticket to having the entire case tossed out with an automatic double-jeopardy being applied.
Regarding the whole "secret mandate" thing, that's some clever propaganda from Trump's goons
That's what Muellers team told the judge, not Trump, not people working under him, not random people. Muellers team. The judge was not amused, gave him 2 weeks to provide the unredacted proof that's it.
That's a little hard to believe, when Canada has the highest quality of life of any country.
"Quality of life" doesn't really mean much. I could live a very high quality life, if I was making $250k and was living in Toronto. On the other hand, if I was a farmer and the government passed laws so that I'd be taxed on passing my incorporated farm to a family member. I wouldn't be. Especially when my profit is only $20k/year.
Did you skip over the part with "wage and price controls" I bet you did. Did you skip the part where wages went from $12k/mo at the middle class level to $31k by the end of 1982. Where mortgage rates were 13% yes it does look like you did. Did you miss the part where lending interest rates hit 26% looks like you did.
Those same polls are the ones that also said Hillary had a 97% chance to win. The only poll that was even close to reality also has Trump's approval rating over 50%.
Considering there's a strong correlation between progressive(and democrat) aligner stupidity in "the resistance" I'm simply taking it at face value. So let's see if this is right: Trump is insecure, narcissistic, and lacks maturity. But somehow was able to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Obama on the other hand was intelligent, thoughtful, and had different ideas. That intelligence, thoughtfulness and different ideas, lead to disintegration of racial continuity, the implementation of policies that created Title IX which has ruined the lives of thousands of young men. The implementation of obamacare which has led to more people losing their health insurance due to costs, then had no insurance BEFORE obamacare. So thoughtful, so intelligent.
Perhaps the Trump's campaign should have done its due diligence on the shady characters it was hiring, or perhaps it did and hired them because of that reason
You must have missed the part where the Obama administration were the ones to recommend the people *and* took it in good faith that they had done due diligence. Have you figured out why Trump absolutely hates Obama era hold-overs now?
Yeah, that's funny. Those 3 people who were working for Trump's campaign and they were indicted on things that happened over a decade before they had anything to do with Trump. In one case, while the person was working for the Podesta Group on behalf of the DNC(you know John Podesta don't you?) You know that there's ~29,000 sealed criminal indictments outstanding, those were all filed by the DoJ in the last year. Just to give you a scope the normal per-year is around 1,100.
The objection to more plants in Sarnia was pollution from the plants, not the power sources.
The *cost* of electricity vs the *cost* of building a power plant for themselves.
On your second point, you said that if I looked up the policy, I would find, in black-and-white, statements from the party showing it to be hostile to manufacturing, but I found the opposite. What relevance does an opinion in a journal have in this context? Your statement was incorrect.
Well you haven't turned around and looked it up yet, you'll find the anti-manufacturing agenda in the place I stated. Again, don't confuse federal vs provincial. Those "opinions" well one was from the 3rd largest political party in Ontario, they were both there to help you out. Maybe you need more breadcrumbs?
It's right there beside "what is hate speech." Or whatever some whiny little authoritarian is crying over because they don't like what someone is saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You must be pretty young, or you'd remember a time when GM was so large that it could have bought Ford and Chrysler in the 1980's, and a country to spare. Remember what happened a few years ago? How's Kmart doing these days? Same problem, how about Sears? Oh...the same problem.
"Partisan" as in demanding that Muller's team follow the law and produce the exculpatory evidence that Muller's team MUST provide for a defense team, as to allow a full and complete defense.
I bet every time you see a meme like: "Hawaii judge orders N.Korean prisoners must remain jailed." You're really hoping it's true.
You mean besides the money from the saudis. And the money from russia, morroco, and so on(that's all from the clinton foundation email leaks). So far the only thing Mueller has is trying to cover his ass as this case collapses around him like all of his other 'high profile' cases(Enron is a really good one with every conviction overturned and a rebuke by the courts). So far, his team have tried to claim they have 'secret privilege' and don't need to disclose to the court various information. They've also illegally refused to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by law. Just to name a few things.
Well it might kill Apple, the same way it nearly killed GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda, Fiat, Nissan and so on nearly a decade ago. Those companies all nearly failed because they had accumulated massive debt due to faults in automotive loans under their own branding, which the parent company was unable to cover(aka bad credit). And before someone goes "but Ford didn't get any bailouts..." they sure did, it was under a different title application called TALF and got $2.1B more then GM did to stop insolvency.
Not to mention the moral issue of forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth. I don't think there is any other situation in which one entity has the right to the body of another. If my brother were dying, and only a transplant from me would save him, there's no legal way to make me cooperate.
And what about the moral choice that led to that pregnancy in the first place? How about the moral choice as to whether or not you have the right to kill another person. And while you're right, nobody could force you to give him that transplant. Someone would commit that self-sacrifice regardless of your own choice.
The problem is sex-selective abortion is eugenics. Abortions because the kid might have autism is eugenics, or any other genetic disorder also eugenics. You can try dressing it up in fancy words, or worded language but it's exactly that. Most of the west outlawed any form of eugenics after the horrors came to light in the 1920's. There were only a few countries that allowed it until the mid 1940's. Hell Canada was one of the first countries to outlaw it and for good reason, right besides forced sterilization of the "mentally unfit" whatever the definition that some nut decided to use to determine it.
You're forcing others to adhere to your *belief* regarding whether or not a nonviable human fetus constitutes a life.
And here you are attempting to force others to adhere to your *belief* that terminating a child because they're the wrong gender is okay? Or because they might be autistic? Come on. That's eugenics pure and simple, I realize that this was hot shit in the late 1890's and through to the 1930's in the western world, most of us grew past that. It appears that some people didn't.
It really is a tricky issue. Only morons try to simplify it.
Except it's not. 22 weeks or 194 days is where we're at when with current technology we can keep that fetus alive. In most cases, it can survive with minimal support generally only warmth and feeding. You really want to get into this argument? Well, a 1yr old sure can't survive on it's own. So we should kill it right? 5 year old? 8 year old? How about 13 years old? The chances of a child surviving on it's own without support from someone is tiny. Is that person at 22 weeks any less deserving of life then the 1yr old?
Why not try looking yourself if you want to find those sources then? It appears that even when someone gives you a source, you ignore whatever is stated. Why not go read the court transcript, it should be easy for you to find. That's the exact reasoning that Muller's team gave the judge, that they don't have to disclose because the mandate itself is "secret" and they don't have to.
Obviously, a "gas chamber". That term has some baggage.
So does "eugenics" but some people seem really in favor of killing those that might be born disabled and fighting against laws that would ban it along with sex-selective abortions.
What exactly stops someone from simply capturing and replaying that data stream?
Nothing. Now don't forget that some diseases like diabetes, lupus, MS, and so on can change the information that's used for biometrics. Retinal patterns being one of the big ones.
Citation needed.
And if Flynn is so innocent and there's all this exculpatory evidence, why the plea bargain at all? If Mueller had been caught hiding exculpatory evidence, why hasn't the conviction been overturned?
Citation given. The reason that the plea bargain has been rejected is because directly of that. Don't forget that the guy mortgaged his house and drained his kids university funds to pay for his defense. The fact that muller has refused to disclose exculpatory evidence means that the plea was rendered in bad faith, the government MUST disclose all evidence, failing to do so is a one-way-ticket to having the entire case tossed out with an automatic double-jeopardy being applied.
Regarding the whole "secret mandate" thing, that's some clever propaganda from Trump's goons
That's what Muellers team told the judge, not Trump, not people working under him, not random people. Muellers team. The judge was not amused, gave him 2 weeks to provide the unredacted proof that's it.
Because then the media would have problems blaming neckbeards for terrorist attacks.
All I can see is the money from selling old reel to reel decks to hipsters with more money then what they can do with.
Try rasmussen. 538 also said Hillary had a 90% chance of winning.
I haven't lived anywhere else in Canada, so I don't know.
Go move to Grande Prairie, Alberta. You'll see just how fast things change.
That's a little hard to believe, when Canada has the highest quality of life of any country.
"Quality of life" doesn't really mean much. I could live a very high quality life, if I was making $250k and was living in Toronto. On the other hand, if I was a farmer and the government passed laws so that I'd be taxed on passing my incorporated farm to a family member. I wouldn't be. Especially when my profit is only $20k/year.
Besides you still haven't figured out the difference between a provincial and federal government. Try again.
It was 12% in 1980. That is not hyperinflation.
Did you skip over the part with "wage and price controls" I bet you did. Did you skip the part where wages went from $12k/mo at the middle class level to $31k by the end of 1982. Where mortgage rates were 13% yes it does look like you did. Did you miss the part where lending interest rates hit 26% looks like you did.
If that's the best you've got princess, I don't have to worry.
Those same polls are the ones that also said Hillary had a 97% chance to win. The only poll that was even close to reality also has Trump's approval rating over 50%.
Considering there's a strong correlation between progressive(and democrat) aligner stupidity in "the resistance" I'm simply taking it at face value. So let's see if this is right: Trump is insecure, narcissistic, and lacks maturity. But somehow was able to build a multi-billion dollar empire. Obama on the other hand was intelligent, thoughtful, and had different ideas. That intelligence, thoughtfulness and different ideas, lead to disintegration of racial continuity, the implementation of policies that created Title IX which has ruined the lives of thousands of young men. The implementation of obamacare which has led to more people losing their health insurance due to costs, then had no insurance BEFORE obamacare. So thoughtful, so intelligent.
Perhaps the Trump's campaign should have done its due diligence on the shady characters it was hiring, or perhaps it did and hired them because of that reason
You must have missed the part where the Obama administration were the ones to recommend the people *and* took it in good faith that they had done due diligence. Have you figured out why Trump absolutely hates Obama era hold-overs now?
In Mashiki land "more than half" is less than 50%.
Lastest polls put him at 51.5% popularity. Don't let the stupid hurt you.
With you, that's almost always the case, no matter the topic.
Well when you're that ignorant, I can only help you so far. Maybe in a few more years you'll put on the big boy pants too.
Yeah, that's funny. Those 3 people who were working for Trump's campaign and they were indicted on things that happened over a decade before they had anything to do with Trump. In one case, while the person was working for the Podesta Group on behalf of the DNC(you know John Podesta don't you?) You know that there's ~29,000 sealed criminal indictments outstanding, those were all filed by the DoJ in the last year. Just to give you a scope the normal per-year is around 1,100.
The objection to more plants in Sarnia was pollution from the plants, not the power sources.
The *cost* of electricity vs the *cost* of building a power plant for themselves.
On your second point, you said that if I looked up the policy, I would find, in black-and-white, statements from the party showing it to be hostile to manufacturing, but I found the opposite. What relevance does an opinion in a journal have in this context? Your statement was incorrect.
Well you haven't turned around and looked it up yet, you'll find the anti-manufacturing agenda in the place I stated. Again, don't confuse federal vs provincial. Those "opinions" well one was from the 3rd largest political party in Ontario, they were both there to help you out. Maybe you need more breadcrumbs?
It's right there beside "what is hate speech." Or whatever some whiny little authoritarian is crying over because they don't like what someone is saying.
1979-1983. That's recent.