Now now! If you'd been reading The Oklahoman paper like a proper okie, you'd know that there is "no proven link" between fracking and earthquakes. The "science isnt settled". Just like it's not proven "that burning fossil fules causes global warming", as the paper likes to remind us regularly.
(For those not in on the joke: The Oklahoman newspaper is owned by a oil/gas billionaire)
It seems to me that you arent grasping his point, nor are you grasping basic forces. its not just "hundreds of pounds". its hundred of pounds.....per square inch.
we arent talking about simple hundred of pounds of force. we're talking about hundred of pounds of pressure per some unit area. the bigger the area, the greater the net force applied by that pressure.
as the man said, even on a not particularly large rock cavity of say 50x50 feet of bearing area, that mere "hundred" pounds of pressure eqautes to 30E6 pounds of net force being applied to that surface. depending on that rock's configuration, its internal stresses, support from surrounding rock, etc, that force can be redirected and concentrated (stress concentration), such that it leads to failures in the internal structural integrity of said rock or nearby rocks.
so the short of it is.... reasonable restrictions are permissible. outright bans or de facto bans are not.
so your quest "to repeal every single damned gun law that has been written at each and every level of government for the past 75 years" is Quixotic and wont happen, because most places laws fall within the permissible restrictions.
which is, again, why i brought up the self-governance thing. for now, you ARE bound by your state and local laws, regardless of your feelings on the matter. they can require licenses, registration, and permit fees (as long as they dont turn into de facto bans, like Chicago's rules did)
Additionally, some historical decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment:
Repeatedly the court held that the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, only applied as restrictions on teh Federal government. Only recently has this begun changing through the concept of "incorporation", which has been slowly bringing these concepts into requirements of the States as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
United States v. Cruikshank (1876):
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other"
"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States"
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes"
Note that a lot of this decision has been overturned over time. But this was one of the first decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment
Presser v. Illinois (1886):
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
Robertson v. Baldwin (1897):
The Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second
Now I was being devils advocate, but the question is a good one: how do you get to more uniform laws, rather than a patchwork of state and local laws, without some sort of overarching control? the supreme Court has long held that (risking a redundant defintion by paraphrasing) "reasonable restrictions are reasonable", and "localities can implement stronger or weaker laws at their discretion".
i would agree with fewer laws (particularly since many are redundant in themselves).
but my point was, right now, if a town wants to have different laws than another town next door, they can. as long as we hold that the different levels of organization below the Federal (local, county, state) are self governing, the only way to bring about uniformity is for the Fed itself to step in and say "This is how it's gonna be." Now theyve done that, but so far in fairly limited ways (as compared to the patchwork of laws at the sub-Fed level which is where the true complexity of the laws lie), such as "felons cant have guns".
another top down approach that would have that effect would be a Supreme Court decision, but that would be a reversal of 200+ years of precedent on all sorts of various, not just including gun rights but also the rights of towns and counties (etc) to self governance, so I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for that.
the only real way right now to bring it about is the so-called grass roots effort, from teh bottom up, using our local governments. but that takes time, and as history shows us, sometimes we lose and the localities vote to go against us. why i posited the Devil's Advocate position: do we abide by self governance at the lowest level possible? Or do we advocate a top down approach?
Face it: many facets of our country and our governance of it run directly at odds to each other. And it's onyl been very recently that the Court finally held what exactly the 2nd Amendment meant, who it applied to, and at what levels of government.
Troll. Like the common myth that a grunt doesnt need to be smart, just needs the ability to shoot bad guys.
Believe it or not, cops and grunts both actually have to be fairly intelligent. Police have to know procedures, constitutional law, federal state and loocal law, precedent, 4th amendment (this oen in particular) precedent in particular....not saying they are all intellectual rockstars with perfect memory, but neither are they dumb. they ahve all been trained and instructed at one point on all of this.
1a) From your own link: "Currently, when the U.S. provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval."
so we are talking about weapons we sell to other nations ARMIES being reimported as privately owned firearms. ie, these aint your pappy's squirrel gun.
1b) From your own link: "the ATF is proposing to conduct background checks on firearms registered to a trust or corporation. The administration said felons and others prohibited from having firearms currently are able to avoid background checks by choosing this route."
Closing a loophole that allows convicted felons to obtain firearms, in violation of current federal law, is NOT an expansion of gun control. Convicted felons are federally barred from owning firearms. period. By going through a third party intermediary convicted felons were obtaining firearms, in violation of the law. This closes that loop hole.
2) GP never stated amtrak allowed open or concealed carry. He simply said "allowed on amtrak". At least you dont call this one a lie.
3) hes referring to, I believe, the National Firearm Reciprocity Act, or something like that. It's passed the house a couple times. its died in committee each time prior to going to the Senate. problem here is right now CCW licenses are still a state issued license. each state has its own requirements, some more or less strict that others.
4) No argument.
5) Stand your ground is not a gun law or gun right. it is pre-trial motion to establish a defense of self defense by removing the normal common law requirement of self defense for you to "attempt to leave the area". under normal self-defense rules, it only applies as a legal defense when it is the last resort, and if you have an opportunity to flee then obviously lethal force in self defense is not the option of last restort, therefore you have a requirement to do so and self defense does not apply. stand your ground laws simply remove that component of the self-defense defense. many stand your ground laws are ambiguous or otherwise lack any real legal definition.
As yet no one has challenged florida's stand your ground law in court.
6) You ignored number 6. The GP is correct. The President has done very little.
there is no federal law that prevents most people from having a fully automatic weapon. thats a popular myth. its very easy to own a fully auto weapon. simply pay the fee (tax) and be on your way. (YMMV due to state and local laws)
most of hte laws are at the state and local level anyway. and isnt part of that whole self governance thing the ability for different levels of the country to get together and decide what specific rules they want to live by?
you seem to be saying we should have more uniform gun laws (albeit by a lack of them), and that would indiciate a stronger central authority (Federal government) to enforce one set of (minimalistic) laws.
Devils Advocate aside, there are other places with super strict gun laws in the nation, and lower crime rates than chicago (and not just because chicago is number 1, and this everyone else is de facto lower). Now dont mistake me, i agree strict gun laws amounting to a near ban are very much a contributing factor. but we also cannot ignore demographics, particularly economic and educational, which have always been, and will always be, the signle biggest risk factors for crime rates.
Non-civilian = "position of authority" So to airport travelers, no TSA arent civilians. Not quite law enforcement (due to that supreme court ruling), but they do control your ability to travel.
Really? The "Government" is determined to do that? I thought Government was us the people? I thought Republicans controlled the house? what about the previous President?
please. this is tired tripe and not even close to factual, and youre an idiot for even positing it. voter apathy isnt because the people are on the government dole (newsflash: the majority of folks arent even on it!!).
voter apathy comes from seeing the undo influence of lobbying, of corporations, of the Koch brothers. voter apathy comes from attempts at voter suppression, moving polling places, shortening hours of operation of pollining places. voter apathy comes from an inability to even vote, because the boss wont let you, because its totally legal in this country to expect a full day's wprk on election day, and if that means someone doesnt get to vote...oh well.
you want to fix voter apathy? you want to fix voter turnout?
Ban and criminalize all corporate lobbying. Overturn Citizens United. Limit all campaign contributions to 5$ or less per person per election, and limit all campaign contributions to private citizens only, direct from citizen to the candidate (ie, no PACs and no party funds). Also disallow any self-financing. Or ban all contributions period, and move to publicly funded elections like most of the rest of the civilized world (which contrary to tea bagger belief, hasnt burned to crisp yet).
and most importantly of all: create a federally recognized Election Day. Mandatory time off from work, shut the entire country down, so that EVERY SINGLE PERSON can go exercise their right to vote without having to worry about their job/boss. Polls open 24 hours. The whole bit. Again: other countries do this, so why do we, In America, the birthplace of modern democracy and freedom, try to make it as hard as possible for people to vote?
the article is all hype and no fact and you're an uninformed idiot. the article is not written to purvey any logic or facts, buit present a lopsided partisan view, while ignoring all assumptions and facts.
"My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31." the only plans killed as a result of the ACA are plans that do not meet the minimum level of care as set forth by law. any other reasons are business decisions of hte company, decisions they could freely make any time for any reason. also her life has not been saved because of her plan, it has been saved by the care provided by her doctors; health insurance != health care
"My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors" Hidden assumption: ignores that all the companies currently providing health insurance are also active on the exchange. why? because customers. because money. thus the hidden assumption/hidden implication is that she loses access access to her provider network without choice, whent hat isnt true at all. quite easily go to the same insurance company and the same network, and the same doctors.
"or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more)" thats why the exchange exists. to provide clear ("transparent"), concise bids from companies competing over your dollars, for your business. the market outside the exchanges will die off except for rich cadillac plans (those 40k/yr plans, like Sen Ted Cruz has) due to simple economic forces.
"for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits" again: assuming cant go to original company. again: ignores that her plan was canceled because it didnt meet minimums, which be definition means her actual existing plan had impaired benefits, and therefore also by definition any plan she gets now will be better than her old
she also states that her providers, who by the way are not hospitals, but the universities UCSD and Stanford, now only accept one particular insurance plan, which isnt her plan anyway. call me stupid, but if she really wants to keep going to those particular doctors, it wouldnt matter whether her plan was canceled or not, she still doesnt have the plan those docs accept.
point is: stupid article. long on hype, short on facts.
actually i remember going through airport security, pre-911, pre-TSA, there was always a couple of sheriff's deputies on duty at the checkpoint. most other airports in other cities were similar. either local PD, sheriff's office, someone.
Besides which, while everyone in the news talks about "the disaterous FB IPO" while speculating about Twitter's upcoming IPO...they all conveniently ignore that FB is currently trading around $50. so sure, the day traders who wanted to make a quick buck lost out, and thats what the news media focuses on....
But when people started dumping shares as the price plummetted, others like me, who were willing to wait a little while, started picking up a few, cautiously at first, and then a couple more, particularly while it was under 20$ a share. I'm not rich, i'm strictly smalltime, but what I do have has doubled my initial investment of ~1k$ in only a year. and that's a win no matter how you look at it.
but what kind of intuition or logic is such symbolism possibly teaching kids? They need to learn the basic logic of numbers and be able to translate that to real things.
We started with simple squares or dots, and based the core concept off simple counting (add/subtract):... > 3 dots.... > 4 dots....... > 7 dots total. 3+4=7
Firstly, why are these damn things multiple choice in the first place? Because it's easier to grade? Stuff that nonsense.
Ask a simple question that clearly deomnstrates the learning objective, and give a space to write an answer, and space for the kid to draw or whatever if he needs to think his way through it. None of this multiple choice nonsense.
if they didnt do it alone, then why arent the ones who helped them also among the greats?
the great men do exist, but their existence does not preclude the existence of those who helped them get there. likewise the existence or fact of help getting a person there, does not preclude that they were indeed "great men".
Slashdot Mirror
Now now!
If you'd been reading The Oklahoman paper like a proper okie, you'd know that there is "no proven link" between fracking and earthquakes. The "science isnt settled". Just like it's not proven "that burning fossil fules causes global warming", as the paper likes to remind us regularly.
(For those not in on the joke: The Oklahoman newspaper is owned by a oil/gas billionaire)
It seems to me that you arent grasping his point, nor are you grasping basic forces.
its not just "hundreds of pounds". its hundred of pounds.....per square inch.
we arent talking about simple hundred of pounds of force.
we're talking about hundred of pounds of pressure per some unit area.
the bigger the area, the greater the net force applied by that pressure.
as the man said, even on a not particularly large rock cavity of say 50x50 feet of bearing area, that mere "hundred" pounds of pressure eqautes to 30E6 pounds of net force being applied to that surface. depending on that rock's configuration, its internal stresses, support from surrounding rock, etc, that force can be redirected and concentrated (stress concentration), such that it leads to failures in the internal structural integrity of said rock or nearby rocks.
so the short of it is.... reasonable restrictions are permissible.
outright bans or de facto bans are not.
so your quest "to repeal every single damned gun law that has been written at each and every level of government for the past 75 years" is Quixotic and wont happen, because most places laws fall within the permissible restrictions.
which is, again, why i brought up the self-governance thing.
for now, you ARE bound by your state and local laws, regardless of your feelings on the matter.
they can require licenses, registration, and permit fees (as long as they dont turn into de facto bans, like Chicago's rules did)
dangit, f'ed up one of the quote tags.
Additionally, some historical decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment:
Repeatedly the court held that the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, only applied as restrictions on teh Federal government. Only recently has this begun changing through the concept of "incorporation", which has been slowly bringing these concepts into requirements of the States as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
United States v. Cruikshank (1876):
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other"
"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States"
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes"
Note that a lot of this decision has been overturned over time. But this was one of the first decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment
Presser v. Illinois (1886):
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
Robertson v. Baldwin (1897):
The Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second
Now I was being devils advocate, but the question is a good one: how do you get to more uniform laws, rather than a patchwork of state and local laws, without some sort of overarching control? the supreme Court has long held that (risking a redundant defintion by paraphrasing) "reasonable restrictions are reasonable", and "localities can implement stronger or weaker laws at their discretion".
i would agree with fewer laws (particularly since many are redundant in themselves).
but my point was, right now, if a town wants to have different laws than another town next door, they can. as long as we hold that the different levels of organization below the Federal (local, county, state) are self governing, the only way to bring about uniformity is for the Fed itself to step in and say "This is how it's gonna be." Now theyve done that, but so far in fairly limited ways (as compared to the patchwork of laws at the sub-Fed level which is where the true complexity of the laws lie), such as "felons cant have guns".
another top down approach that would have that effect would be a Supreme Court decision, but that would be a reversal of 200+ years of precedent on all sorts of various, not just including gun rights but also the rights of towns and counties (etc) to self governance, so I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for that.
the only real way right now to bring it about is the so-called grass roots effort, from teh bottom up, using our local governments. but that takes time, and as history shows us, sometimes we lose and the localities vote to go against us. why i posited the Devil's Advocate position: do we abide by self governance at the lowest level possible? Or do we advocate a top down approach?
Face it: many facets of our country and our governance of it run directly at odds to each other. And it's onyl been very recently that the Court finally held what exactly the 2nd Amendment meant, who it applied to, and at what levels of government.
Troll.
Like the common myth that a grunt doesnt need to be smart, just needs the ability to shoot bad guys.
Believe it or not, cops and grunts both actually have to be fairly intelligent. Police have to know procedures, constitutional law, federal state and loocal law, precedent, 4th amendment (this oen in particular) precedent in particular....not saying they are all intellectual rockstars with perfect memory, but neither are they dumb. they ahve all been trained and instructed at one point on all of this.
short and sweet: you're an idiot troll.
again, the myth that only bad guys know how to use guns, and armed citizens are just targets.
its neither insightful nor funny, just stupid.
1a) From your own link: "Currently, when the U.S. provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval."
so we are talking about weapons we sell to other nations ARMIES being reimported as privately owned firearms. ie, these aint your pappy's squirrel gun.
1b) From your own link: "the ATF is proposing to conduct background checks on firearms registered to a trust or corporation. The administration said felons and others prohibited from having firearms currently are able to avoid background checks by choosing this route."
Closing a loophole that allows convicted felons to obtain firearms, in violation of current federal law, is NOT an expansion of gun control.
Convicted felons are federally barred from owning firearms. period.
By going through a third party intermediary convicted felons were obtaining firearms, in violation of the law.
This closes that loop hole.
2) GP never stated amtrak allowed open or concealed carry. He simply said "allowed on amtrak". At least you dont call this one a lie.
3) hes referring to, I believe, the National Firearm Reciprocity Act, or something like that. It's passed the house a couple times. its died in committee each time prior to going to the Senate. problem here is right now CCW licenses are still a state issued license. each state has its own requirements, some more or less strict that others.
4) No argument.
5) Stand your ground is not a gun law or gun right. it is pre-trial motion to establish a defense of self defense by removing the normal common law requirement of self defense for you to "attempt to leave the area". under normal self-defense rules, it only applies as a legal defense when it is the last resort, and if you have an opportunity to flee then obviously lethal force in self defense is not the option of last restort, therefore you have a requirement to do so and self defense does not apply. stand your ground laws simply remove that component of the self-defense defense. many stand your ground laws are ambiguous or otherwise lack any real legal definition.
As yet no one has challenged florida's stand your ground law in court.
6) You ignored number 6. The GP is correct. The President has done very little.
"he disagrees with me therefore he is a shill, and what about those [insert conspiracy theory here]" ..
and thus we know you have nothing relevent to say
the fee being for the federal firearms license, which is pretty easy to get.
there is no federal law that prevents most people from having a fully automatic weapon. thats a popular myth. its very easy to own a fully auto weapon. simply pay the fee (tax) and be on your way. (YMMV due to state and local laws)
most of hte laws are at the state and local level anyway. and isnt part of that whole self governance thing the ability for different levels of the country to get together and decide what specific rules they want to live by?
you seem to be saying we should have more uniform gun laws (albeit by a lack of them), and that would indiciate a stronger central authority (Federal government) to enforce one set of (minimalistic) laws.
Devils Advocate aside, there are other places with super strict gun laws in the nation, and lower crime rates than chicago (and not just because chicago is number 1, and this everyone else is de facto lower). Now dont mistake me, i agree strict gun laws amounting to a near ban are very much a contributing factor. but we also cannot ignore demographics, particularly economic and educational, which have always been, and will always be, the signle biggest risk factors for crime rates.
Non-civilian = "position of authority"
So to airport travelers, no TSA arent civilians. Not quite law enforcement (due to that supreme court ruling), but they do control your ability to travel.
Really? The "Government" is determined to do that? I thought Government was us the people? I thought Republicans controlled the house? what about the previous President?
please. this is tired tripe and not even close to factual, and youre an idiot for even positing it.
voter apathy isnt because the people are on the government dole (newsflash: the majority of folks arent even on it!!).
voter apathy comes from seeing the undo influence of lobbying, of corporations, of the Koch brothers.
voter apathy comes from attempts at voter suppression, moving polling places, shortening hours of operation of pollining places.
voter apathy comes from an inability to even vote, because the boss wont let you, because its totally legal in this country to expect a full day's wprk on election day, and if that means someone doesnt get to vote...oh well.
you want to fix voter apathy?
you want to fix voter turnout?
Ban and criminalize all corporate lobbying.
Overturn Citizens United.
Limit all campaign contributions to 5$ or less per person per election, and limit all campaign contributions to private citizens only, direct from citizen to the candidate (ie, no PACs and no party funds). Also disallow any self-financing.
Or ban all contributions period, and move to publicly funded elections like most of the rest of the civilized world (which contrary to tea bagger belief, hasnt burned to crisp yet).
and most importantly of all: create a federally recognized Election Day. Mandatory time off from work, shut the entire country down, so that EVERY SINGLE PERSON can go exercise their right to vote without having to worry about their job/boss. Polls open 24 hours. The whole bit.
Again: other countries do this, so why do we, In America, the birthplace of modern democracy and freedom, try to make it as hard as possible for people to vote?
addendum: and EVEN if we do simply take the article at face value....it only strengthens the position of nationalized healthcare advocates.
the article is all hype and no fact and you're an uninformed idiot.
the article is not written to purvey any logic or facts, buit present a lopsided partisan view, while ignoring all assumptions and facts.
"My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31."
the only plans killed as a result of the ACA are plans that do not meet the minimum level of care as set forth by law. any other reasons are business decisions of hte company, decisions they could freely make any time for any reason.
also her life has not been saved because of her plan, it has been saved by the care provided by her doctors; health insurance != health care
"My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors"
Hidden assumption: ignores that all the companies currently providing health insurance are also active on the exchange. why? because customers. because money. thus the hidden assumption/hidden implication is that she loses access access to her provider network without choice, whent hat isnt true at all. quite easily go to the same insurance company and the same network, and the same doctors.
"or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more)"
thats why the exchange exists. to provide clear ("transparent"), concise bids from companies competing over your dollars, for your business. the market outside the exchanges will die off except for rich cadillac plans (those 40k/yr plans, like Sen Ted Cruz has) due to simple economic forces.
"for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits"
again: assuming cant go to original company.
again: ignores that her plan was canceled because it didnt meet minimums, which be definition means her actual existing plan had impaired benefits, and therefore also by definition any plan she gets now will be better than her old
she also states that her providers, who by the way are not hospitals, but the universities UCSD and Stanford, now only accept one particular insurance plan, which isnt her plan anyway. call me stupid, but if she really wants to keep going to those particular doctors, it wouldnt matter whether her plan was canceled or not, she still doesnt have the plan those docs accept.
point is: stupid article. long on hype, short on facts.
actually i remember going through airport security, pre-911, pre-TSA, there was always a couple of sheriff's deputies on duty at the checkpoint.
most other airports in other cities were similar. either local PD, sheriff's office, someone.
*against any /. were a stock, it's stock would double just from adding a frigging EDIT BUTTON!!!)
(seriosuly, if
that could be said of any company and becomes advice any investment of any kind, period.
the GP is right: you know nothing Jon Snow.
Besides which, while everyone in the news talks about "the disaterous FB IPO" while speculating about Twitter's upcoming IPO...they all conveniently ignore that FB is currently trading around $50. so sure, the day traders who wanted to make a quick buck lost out, and thats what the news media focuses on....
But when people started dumping shares as the price plummetted, others like me, who were willing to wait a little while, started picking up a few, cautiously at first, and then a couple more, particularly while it was under 20$ a share. I'm not rich, i'm strictly smalltime, but what I do have has doubled my initial investment of ~1k$ in only a year. and that's a win no matter how you look at it.
but what kind of intuition or logic is such symbolism possibly teaching kids?
They need to learn the basic logic of numbers and be able to translate that to real things.
We started with simple squares or dots, and based the core concept off simple counting (add/subtract): ... > 3 dots .... > 4 dots ....... > 7 dots total.
3+4=7
This coins to cup thing is weird as hell.
Firstly, why are these damn things multiple choice in the first place? Because it's easier to grade? Stuff that nonsense.
Ask a simple question that clearly deomnstrates the learning objective, and give a space to write an answer, and space for the kid to draw or whatever if he needs to think his way through it. None of this multiple choice nonsense.
Communism can only be imposed by force and mass murder, because it's so completely incompatible with human nature.
That is not even close to factual.
if they didnt do it alone, then why arent the ones who helped them also among the greats?
the great men do exist, but their existence does not preclude the existence of those who helped them get there.
likewise the existence or fact of help getting a person there, does not preclude that they were indeed "great men".