Figure the responders can still head out, but because the drone can get their first, the response can be dialed back or even called off based on the drone's observations. so instead of 4 or 5 vehicles showing up, only one does (since someone still needs to show just to be sure).
Of those three only in Japan was democracy instituted. Italy and Germany both had democratic elections prior to WWII. The Nazis and the National Fascist Party did not seize power. They were elected.
And calling the thing we instituted in Iraq a democracy is a sick joke qualifies only under the very loosest of definitions.
It's difficult to say that Iran never invaded anyone since Iran is an Islamic 'nation' that rejects the notion of 'nation'.
Baloney. Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. Their Islamic revolution was a response to and result of our meddling in their country, a country that a fairly secular democracy before we started meddling, over oil, and installed a dictator. Oddly enough, other than those in charge, the country is STILL fairly secular, with their internal "culture war" mimicking our own arguments between believers and non-believers of various degrees..
Once again I don't know what's worse: that someone would be stupid enough to write what you just wrote, or that other idiots would actually mod it up. Not discriminating is now considered a weakness, as is trying to stop it, and working for a more equal society.
Really this is just an extension of the stupid alpha male nonsense some people feel compelled to act out by being uncaring unsympathetic and antisocial jerks to those around them, who think being a man means being an arsehole.
If Leia had been made the comedic relief of the movie, whose sole purpose was to constantly portray negative stereotypes that made her the butt of jokes, the way Jar Jar was, then yes.
Mr. AC, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
That's basically it in a nutshell. The first time he told the story wrong could have just been a BS session. Could have been a simple mistake is relating it, could have been a bit of bravado to a buddy. Don't know. Doesn't matter. Not the point.
Point is, the way our memory works is that very act of retrieving a memory can change it. So when we mistell the story once, it doesn't take long or much for it to -become- the memory, particularly when the memory is still somewhat pliable. ie, before it's been locked in by repetition, as repetition reinforces the neural connections and makes them more inflexible; but if the mistelling is what's been repeated it's what gets locked in. The Fish Tale, and its variants, is a classic example of this too. Few of us always recall and retell every story completely accurately without the intention of lying or being untruthful. In our minds we are being completely truthful.
The Illustrated Guide to the Law (lawcomic.net) actually covered this really well recently too, in talking about the fallibility of eye witnesses, starting about here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2...
Only blogs I see regularly are The Incidental Economist (healthcare news, reform, and research) and Real Time with Bill Maher (It's...um...Bill Maher...).
the only person saying "black people aren't smart enough" is you.
Over here we live in reality, and the reality I that getting one of those IDs requires taking time off from work that we frequently either don't get or can't afford to take. It also frequently requires traveling clear cross town, when you don't have reliable personal transportation, and live in towns that lack adequate public transportation. Or dealings with the fact that some states (*cough*Georgia*) have been intentionally shutting down DMV's offices (as well as polling stations for actual election day) in minority parts of town, and making it even harder.
Or consider Texas where it's a literal 6 hour drive for people in some regions of the state to reach an ID issuing authority.
You are a troll. You are a racist. And you are ignorant. Your history shows it. Though flinging SJW like it's a epithet is also a pretty good indicator.
Voter fraud is a literal non issue, a nonthreat to the integrity of the election process, but even if wanting to get the process from 99.999% to 100% integrity was a worthy goal, there's the bothersome fact that IDs do NOTHING prevent the largest sources of fraud. All they do is make it harder for large segments of population to vote, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people in order to stop a few dozen cases of in person fraud, the single most inefficient, ineffective, and most minor form of voter fraud. That fact that you idiots focus solely on Voter ID reveals your "commitment to election integrity" for the lie it is.
The fact it hampers many people, particularly people who might vote against you, isn't merely an unfortunate bug, it's a goddamn feature, and the entire intent.
And yet preventing or stopping harassment and damage from fake malicious rules is also completely reasonable thing for a business to do and within their rights. If he's wrong and simply trying to intimidate people, then he is then leaving himself open to a countersuit. There is no problem here.
If you caused harm to someone, such a business, by saying a false thing, then you are at fault and liable. But if the thing you said was true, then the someone cannot blame you for saying a true thing. Reviews having a greater likelihood of being contentious may need a stricter legal standard before finding fault, but the potential is still there and rightfully so.
then i take it you are against the right to: -vote -privacy -travel -marry -custody of one's children -control upbringing of said children -engage in sexual activity, or not -cease medical treatment -access the courts -right to be presumed innocent -right to a fair trial -right to a jury of your peers -and lastly the very concept of judicial review itself
No it's not tyranny. Expanding freedom and liberty more fully across the citizenry is never tyranny, and you are quite ignorant for even saying that.
which by the way does not mean that churches will be required to marry gay folks (they wont), so no point even trying to go there.
a church is not a business advertising itself to the public, so public accommodation restrictions on discrimination dont apply like they do to that bigoted pizza joint in indiana. a church is private religious entity and our country bends over backwards to avoid forcing those to act against their tenets.
It sounds attractive, but actually there is much good that comes of it. Visitation rights and natural assumption of your spouse's property for starters.
Fundamental civics fail Please go read the 9th Amendment.
Marriage is aboslutely a fundamental right for all persons. The Constitution is NOT, nor should it ever be thought it, as a list of all enumerated rights people have. Rather it even quite explicitly states that it should NOT be considered to be the be all end all list of rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-- 9th Amendment
Put simply: we the people have every single damn right we say we do, and can convince the rest of society to accept. Thus we have the right to vote, marry, privacy, education, work, travel, and a host of others that have been through the courts yet not explicitly detailed in the text of the USC.
That's why it's sometimes said, as these rights have been defended in court, that the Constitution has always contained and protected these rights. We as a society had simply not advanced enough to yet grasp them.
Think of what new rights society will have learned about in the next 100 years, brought on by technological progress and societal change.
considering the considerable bibliography included on any given article they publish, please, feel free to point out where they have made a mistake.
it would be much more convincing than simply vaguely waving your hand in the air and claiming BS without proving it.
facts dont use validity because of who says them. the fact that you think they do indicates you are weak of intellect and unable to handle a challenge to your views let alone back it up and defend it.
Slashdot Mirror
Figure the responders can still head out, but because the drone can get their first, the response can be dialed back or even called off based on the drone's observations. so instead of 4 or 5 vehicles showing up, only one does (since someone still needs to show just to be sure).
strap giant rockets on pluto and smash it into Venus ala Planetary Annihilation.
Or just one day of funding to the illegal aliens with free stuff.
well obviously you have absolutely no clue how much we actually spend on that.
Of those three only in Japan was democracy instituted.
Italy and Germany both had democratic elections prior to WWII.
The Nazis and the National Fascist Party did not seize power.
They were elected.
And calling the thing we instituted in Iraq a democracy is a sick joke qualifies only under the very loosest of definitions.
It's difficult to say that Iran never invaded anyone since Iran is an Islamic 'nation' that rejects the notion of 'nation'.
Baloney. Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. Their Islamic revolution was a response to and result of our meddling in their country, a country that a fairly secular democracy before we started meddling, over oil, and installed a dictator. Oddly enough, other than those in charge, the country is STILL fairly secular, with their internal "culture war" mimicking our own arguments between believers and non-believers of various degrees..
Oh boy. This thread is sure to break my all time high score for playing Spot The Nutjob.
No, they're racists because they exhibit racist behaviors.
Just like we know you're a troll because of the things you say.
Once again I don't know what's worse: that someone would be stupid enough to write what you just wrote, or that other idiots would actually mod it up.
Not discriminating is now considered a weakness, as is trying to stop it, and working for a more equal society.
Really this is just an extension of the stupid alpha male nonsense some people feel compelled to act out by being uncaring unsympathetic and antisocial jerks to those around them, who think being a man means being an arsehole.
If Leia had been made the comedic relief of the movie, whose sole purpose was to constantly portray negative stereotypes that made her the butt of jokes, the way Jar Jar was, then yes.
Then we must conclude that you led a very sheltered life.
Or were willfully blind to it.
Given your past comments, I'm going with the latter.
Oh BS. On all counts.
Seriously?
Were you not even born yet when the movie came out?
Or are you somehow commenting without having ever seen the movie?
Mr. AC, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
That's basically it in a nutshell. The first time he told the story wrong could have just been a BS session. Could have been a simple mistake is relating it, could have been a bit of bravado to a buddy. Don't know. Doesn't matter. Not the point.
Point is, the way our memory works is that very act of retrieving a memory can change it. So when we mistell the story once, it doesn't take long or much for it to -become- the memory, particularly when the memory is still somewhat pliable. ie, before it's been locked in by repetition, as repetition reinforces the neural connections and makes them more inflexible; but if the mistelling is what's been repeated it's what gets locked in. The Fish Tale, and its variants, is a classic example of this too. Few of us always recall and retell every story completely accurately without the intention of lying or being untruthful. In our minds we are being completely truthful.
The Illustrated Guide to the Law (lawcomic.net) actually covered this really well recently too, in talking about the fallibility of eye witnesses, starting about here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2...
Only blogs I see regularly are The Incidental Economist (healthcare news, reform, and research) and Real Time with Bill Maher (It's...um...Bill Maher...).
http://theincidentaleconomist....
http://www.real-time-with-bill...
the only person saying "black people aren't smart enough" is you.
Over here we live in reality, and the reality I that getting one of those IDs requires taking time off from work that we frequently either don't get or can't afford to take. It also frequently requires traveling clear cross town, when you don't have reliable personal transportation, and live in towns that lack adequate public transportation. Or dealings with the fact that some states (*cough*Georgia*) have been intentionally shutting down DMV's offices (as well as polling stations for actual election day) in minority parts of town, and making it even harder.
Or consider Texas where it's a literal 6 hour drive for people in some regions of the state to reach an ID issuing authority.
You are a troll.
You are a racist.
And you are ignorant.
Your history shows it.
Though flinging SJW like it's a epithet is also a pretty good indicator.
Voter fraud is a literal non issue, a nonthreat to the integrity of the election process, but even if wanting to get the process from 99.999% to 100% integrity was a worthy goal, there's the bothersome fact that IDs do NOTHING prevent the largest sources of fraud. All they do is make it harder for large segments of population to vote, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people in order to stop a few dozen cases of in person fraud, the single most inefficient, ineffective, and most minor form of voter fraud. That fact that you idiots focus solely on Voter ID reveals your "commitment to election integrity" for the lie it is.
The fact it hampers many people, particularly people who might vote against you, isn't merely an unfortunate bug, it's a goddamn feature, and the entire intent.
That's a big ol pile of bull you just wrote.
And yet preventing or stopping harassment and damage from fake malicious rules is also completely reasonable thing for a business to do and within their rights.
If he's wrong and simply trying to intimidate people, then he is then leaving himself open to a countersuit.
There is no problem here.
If you caused harm to someone, such a business, by saying a false thing, then you are at fault and liable.
But if the thing you said was true, then the someone cannot blame you for saying a true thing.
Reviews having a greater likelihood of being contentious may need a stricter legal standard before finding fault, but the potential is still there and rightfully so.
then i take it you are against the right to:
-vote
-privacy
-travel
-marry
-custody of one's children
-control upbringing of said children
-engage in sexual activity, or not
-cease medical treatment
-access the courts
-right to be presumed innocent
-right to a fair trial
-right to a jury of your peers
-and lastly the very concept of judicial review itself
No it's not tyranny.
Expanding freedom and liberty more fully across the citizenry is never tyranny, and you are quite ignorant for even saying that.
which by the way does not mean that churches will be required to marry gay folks (they wont), so no point even trying to go there.
a church is not a business advertising itself to the public, so public accommodation restrictions on discrimination dont apply like they do to that bigoted pizza joint in indiana. a church is private religious entity and our country bends over backwards to avoid forcing those to act against their tenets.
you can practice your religion all you want....up to the point where it requires you to discriminate or otherwise impair the freedom of someone else.
these "religious liberty" arguments in defense of discrimination are nothing but polished turds.
It sounds attractive, but actually there is much good that comes of it.
Visitation rights and natural assumption of your spouse's property for starters.
Fundamental civics fail
Please go read the 9th Amendment.
Marriage is aboslutely a fundamental right for all persons.
The Constitution is NOT, nor should it ever be thought it, as a list of all enumerated rights people have.
Rather it even quite explicitly states that it should NOT be considered to be the be all end all list of rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-- 9th Amendment
Put simply: we the people have every single damn right we say we do, and can convince the rest of society to accept.
Thus we have the right to vote, marry, privacy, education, work, travel, and a host of others that have been through the courts yet not explicitly detailed in the text of the USC.
That's why it's sometimes said, as these rights have been defended in court, that the Constitution has always contained and protected these rights.
We as a society had simply not advanced enough to yet grasp them.
Think of what new rights society will have learned about in the next 100 years, brought on by technological progress and societal change.
considering the considerable bibliography included on any given article they publish, please, feel free to point out where they have made a mistake.
it would be much more convincing than simply vaguely waving your hand in the air and claiming BS without proving it.
facts dont use validity because of who says them.
the fact that you think they do indicates you are weak of intellect and unable to handle a challenge to your views let alone back it up and defend it.