the dude almost always goes for the underdog grassroots candidates. i mean, come on, did you really expect delay to get overturned in the last election? but kos backed a dem candidate anyway, and now she has name recognition and backers. he doesn't tend to back the big money business dems who typically are more likely to win.
what is it that the anti-bacterial agents have that the soap does not?
triclosan or something similar. chemicals that inhibit bacteria by destroying the cell wall with brute force like soap or alcohol are not really going to breed resistance. however, improper washing may help breed stronger versions of them (if you only wash a lil and the stronger ones survive).
but complex-acting chemicals like triclosan and antibiotics can be resisted by regular old evolution.
flat-earthers aren't getting school boards to mandate the flat-earth hypothesis be taught in science classes. if they were, you bet you'd see the same sort of thing in articles by astronomers.
back in 1998 hussein had WMDs and a WMD program. that's why all of those quotes are from 1998. in late 1998, clinton got pissed and bombed the shit out of iraq, targeting anything that looked remotely like a WMD storage or manfacture facility.
that isn't to say that some dems didn't speak of WMD programs in iraq after then, but just realize that using those statements from 1998 is about as disingenuous as using quotes from 1945 to 'prove' that the democrats thought germany was a threat to the US in 1973.
hey chicken little, you sound like most old people i know. for years they kept saying "i'll never get social security, it'll be long gone before it's my time"
now they're all cashing their social security checks. woo, the sky sure is falling!
wanna save social security? keep jerkoff politicians from dipping into it to try to hide their big spending in other parts of the budget. raise the cap.
The video of that will be played by their opponents for every election from now on.
not really. the dems have the upper hand in this issue and they know it. they can just point to the CF that is bush's medicare prescription drug package and say "what, you want this guy to mess with your social security?"
if bush had a history of fixing problems like this, it would make a fantastic talking point for the GOP. but in this case, it aint gonna fly.
yeah, but these tribes also donate money normally. is all the $ all of his clients donated as campaign contributions 'through' abramoff? of course not. look at the money reid got. you think that a casino-running tribe donated to a powerful, pro-casino nevada senator because abramoff asked them to to cover his tracks? please.
actually, about 8 decisions since miller in the federal circuit have upheld the doctrine that it doesn't only apply to shotguns. none of them have been overturned by the SCOTUS.
I'm guessing that you are not aware that the ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist whose basic ideology is that you have NO individual liberties. Just a thought.
and america was founded by hardcore slaveowners. what's your point?
On some issues, such as the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), they argue and stretch the meaning beyond the clear wording (i.e. States are not "Congress," so the prohibition does not apply to State establishment of religion, although most states have similar Constitutional prohibitions).
actually, the prohibition does apply to the states, thanks to the 14th amendment.
In other matters, such as the Second Amendment, they argue against civil liberties in opposition to the clear wording and intent ("..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."), by arguing it somehow doesn't recognize an individual right.
which is consistent with decades of SCOTUS decisions. it aint a winner, and the ACLU knows it.
Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun.
the restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is only at the federal level. any of their politics aside, the ACLU knows that if they got involved with a gun ban on the state level it'd get thrown out.
that being said, what's left is stuff like the brady bill and the machine gun ban. you could argue that both are federally restrictive on rights, but that flies in the face of a long line of SCOTUS decisions.
personally, while i think the ACLU does let its own politics get in the way of their decisions to take on gun cases, they also have to take on cases that have a likelihood of winning in one way or another. in that way i agree with you.
so first you say that GW is "100% a natural effect of our environment" and then you say that mankind speeds it up. so i guess it isn't 100% natural then, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
that's what they want you to think.
the dude almost always goes for the underdog grassroots candidates. i mean, come on, did you really expect delay to get overturned in the last election? but kos backed a dem candidate anyway, and now she has name recognition and backers. he doesn't tend to back the big money business dems who typically are more likely to win.
what's the secret patch gonna be called, Hot Cocoa?
what is it that the anti-bacterial agents have that the soap does not?
triclosan or something similar. chemicals that inhibit bacteria by destroying the cell wall with brute force like soap or alcohol are not really going to breed resistance. however, improper washing may help breed stronger versions of them (if you only wash a lil and the stronger ones survive).
but complex-acting chemicals like triclosan and antibiotics can be resisted by regular old evolution.
flat-earthers aren't getting school boards to mandate the flat-earth hypothesis be taught in science classes. if they were, you bet you'd see the same sort of thing in articles by astronomers.
"you better pray to god that thing doesn't carry the spice channel."
sweet creeping zombie jesus, lighten up already.
back in 1998 hussein had WMDs and a WMD program. that's why all of those quotes are from 1998. in late 1998, clinton got pissed and bombed the shit out of iraq, targeting anything that looked remotely like a WMD storage or manfacture facility.
that isn't to say that some dems didn't speak of WMD programs in iraq after then, but just realize that using those statements from 1998 is about as disingenuous as using quotes from 1945 to 'prove' that the democrats thought germany was a threat to the US in 1973.
hey chicken little, you sound like most old people i know. for years they kept saying "i'll never get social security, it'll be long gone before it's my time"
now they're all cashing their social security checks. woo, the sky sure is falling!
wanna save social security? keep jerkoff politicians from dipping into it to try to hide their big spending in other parts of the budget. raise the cap.
The video of that will be played by their opponents for every election from now on.
not really. the dems have the upper hand in this issue and they know it. they can just point to the CF that is bush's medicare prescription drug package and say "what, you want this guy to mess with your social security?"
if bush had a history of fixing problems like this, it would make a fantastic talking point for the GOP. but in this case, it aint gonna fly.
during load times, yet
I'll never forget the expression on his smug ass face when I should him the outer valance band.
that has to be the nerdiest smackdown i've ever read. sheesh.
yeah, but these tribes also donate money normally. is all the $ all of his clients donated as campaign contributions 'through' abramoff? of course not. look at the money reid got. you think that a casino-running tribe donated to a powerful, pro-casino nevada senator because abramoff asked them to to cover his tracks? please.
Check into Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana for just two of many
show me that both of them took money directly from abramoff. go on, show me.
actually, about 8 decisions since miller in the federal circuit have upheld the doctrine that it doesn't only apply to shotguns. none of them have been overturned by the SCOTUS.
Huh? Are you arguing that "equal protection" requires that all states have the same laws? What's the purpose of State government in that case?
no, i'm arguing that the 14th amendment requires that all state laws be consistent with a number of parts of the bill of rights.
Cites, please. SCOTUS has never decided a 2nd Amendment case based on an individual vs. collective right argument.
US v Miller, for starters.
for a guy whining about some other dude reciting dem talking points, you sure recite em yourself.
Amongst, the people that Abramoff paid off includes Democratic congresscritters as well as Republicans. (Including Dem leadership.)
not a single dem was paid off by abramoff. look at his own donations, not a single dem.
President Clinton claimed the right to perform warrantless phsical searches for "national security" reasons that included drug raids.
back when FISA didn't cover physical searches. this whole thing is about FISA, after all.
I'm guessing that you are not aware that the ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist whose basic ideology is that you have NO individual liberties. Just a thought.
and america was founded by hardcore slaveowners. what's your point?
On some issues, such as the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), they argue and stretch the meaning beyond the clear wording (i.e. States are not "Congress," so the prohibition does not apply to State establishment of religion, although most states have similar Constitutional prohibitions).
actually, the prohibition does apply to the states, thanks to the 14th amendment.
In other matters, such as the Second Amendment, they argue against civil liberties in opposition to the clear wording and intent ("..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."), by arguing it somehow doesn't recognize an individual right.
which is consistent with decades of SCOTUS decisions. it aint a winner, and the ACLU knows it.
sorry, miswrote. should be: "the restriction on the government's ability to restrict the right to keep and bear arms"
Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun.
the restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is only at the federal level. any of their politics aside, the ACLU knows that if they got involved with a gun ban on the state level it'd get thrown out.
that being said, what's left is stuff like the brady bill and the machine gun ban. you could argue that both are federally restrictive on rights, but that flies in the face of a long line of SCOTUS decisions.
personally, while i think the ACLU does let its own politics get in the way of their decisions to take on gun cases, they also have to take on cases that have a likelihood of winning in one way or another. in that way i agree with you.
so first you say that GW is "100% a natural effect of our environment" and then you say that mankind speeds it up. so i guess it isn't 100% natural then, is it?
my god, the dead milkmen were right.
looks lik you nd a nw kyboard. your "" ky is brokn.
no, it's the stuff that comes out when ya push down on a pregnant woman's stomach.
wait, that's 'mung'.
now i'm confused.