never take anything the whackydoo at infowars, or any of his brainwashed cronies, says seriously. even if he says the sky is blue, you better double check first. that's how crazy he (they) is.
Checklist: is it coffee? No is it meant to replace coffee? Yes
Then coffee substitute is the proper terminology. If it didnt come from coffee beans, then its not coffee. that shouldnt be a difficult concept for you to grasp. You just failed to apply the proper marketing technique to open up a market for it.
for what its worth, democrats were never "the anti racism" party. they did become the party of the minorities, but only after the fact, and largely due to the migration of the southern democrats out of the party and the moderate republicans into it (and i say this as someone who usually votes democratic).
if you study your history, it was the republican party that fought for abolition, and the republican party who fought to civil rights. it was then in the midst of and because of the vietnam war and the social issues of the time (including, but not solely civil rights) as expanded by LBJ, that the parties began seeing members leave their parties to join the other as the parties bagan fracturing internally. the result was the loss of the "southern democrats" (and other "conservative" leaning democrats) to the republicans, and the loss of the "rockefeller republicans" (moderates, in favor of civil rights and social reforms, who used to control the party) to the democrats, and as a result the parties became more internally homogenized, and became what we know today. Remember, up until the 60s, the Democratic party was the party of the young white rural males, particularly in the south, standing up to The Man, standing for The Little Guy, etc etc. (contrast to teh most recent election where the party heads flatly said they would no longer even court the "white male" demographic)
Your ignorance aside, yes, it is, a form of democracy. The word Democracy does not in and of itself imply ONLY the form known as a "direct democracy". The phrase "democratic repbulic" means exactly jack squat as far as "proving" we are not a democracy. It's the equivalent of saying "The number 2 is *not* a number. It's an even number."
a democratic republic, or a representative democracy, or a parlamentary republic/democracy...they all mean the same damn thing. semantics aside, these constant "its not a democracy" statements are nothing more than ignorance, and attempts to obfuscate the issue. usually as a means to excuse certain behaviours and outcomes.
Both sides were right. Both the side claiming we needed a Bill of Rights to enumerate certain rights, and the side who thought it dangerous because then anything not written down would possibly be denied. The compromise being the 9th Amendment, which makes it VERY clear that the Bill of Rights is NOT intended to be the be all end all list of all rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thusly, where the people/society maintain that we do and should have a right to privacy, we de facto DO have precisely that right.
After all. Government BY the people, OF the people, and FOR the people....so that even though we elect reps to handle the daily chores of it, we are still a democracy, and the governemt is supposed to be an abstraction of us the people at large, enforcing our collective will.
Just because we have more important things to do than vote and execute parlimentary procedure all day, and thus elect reps to do it for us, doesnt make us "not a democracy" you ignorant dbag.
hey look, its the android fanboy who in the other thread claimed android is the dominant gaming platform.
given your statement you probably also think that the Ouya article from earlier makes a totally relevant point that no one should buy the Ouya GAMING CONSOLE because its slower than any most recent ANDROID PHONES.
Because that's a totally relevant comparison..
just like comparing windows to Android and proclaiming Andoid dominant because its on more phones than Windows is on PCs....
1) an armed society is a polite society. simply inarguable. we have nothing to fear frm each other, only from those who live outside the law and would seek to make me a victim 2) most criminals give precisely 0 f**ks about gun laws. disarm every citizen, and everyone is equally ready to be a victim to anyone able to gain any advantage over them, be it through sheer size/strenght, or a gun illegally obtained. its like the naive hope that if we just dismantled our entire military, the rest of world would follow suite, and there would never be any war every again and everyone would just be one big happy family. 3) the NRA has a membership of only ~4million people. 4) meanwhile there are >180 million gun owners in the country, over half the population, 99.999% of which have never committed a crime, and never will 5) meaning the NRA represents only 2.2% of gun owners, possibly as many as double that in terms of folks who would jion and just havent. the rest dont give 2 f**ks about the NRA, even though the NRA claims to speak for them 6) the "militias" represent an even smaller portion of the populace than the NRA (making that an Appeal to the Extreme fallacy). its about as relevant as as painting all leftists as dope smoking free loving hippy communists. 7) guns would not have prevented this. and guns arent necesarily about fewer homicides. most homicides are between criminals anyway (re: #2), and no one really cares if they kill each other off. what people care about is innocent victims, bystanders, or otherwise defenseless persons who become victims to criminals. armed citizens are less likely to fall victim to an attack. -- a woman walking down the street pushing a baby stroller in Georgia, 2 thugs rob her and shoots her baby in the head. no gun law would have prevented that. but if she had been carrying, she could have. its as simple as that.
guns arent always the answer, by any means. there's a concept called the "Continuum of Force". if someone shoves you, you dont pull a gun and shoot them in the head. a person with a gun who goes "cowboy" can be as dangerous as the criminal threat. and sometimes it is easier or safer to just hand over the wallet. but that's not something anyone on the outside of a situation can ever determine for someone else who's in that situation, especially in hindsight. it is the person in the moment who must make that decision, of how serious the threat is. ie whether its reached the point where serious bodily harm and/or death is likely outcome, and therefore use of deadly force is the best chance for survival.
theres still the consideration that the USA is considered pretty much safe from these sorts of thing, while the same cannot be said of Iraq. that kinda has a lot to do with it too.
Yes, let's compare someplace considered generally safe with someplace considered generally not safe. Or a place and event that many people in our country are tied to in some way (even if only by the fast its our country) to a place (another country) that most people in our country arent tied to or impacted by.
also: FYI, your iraqi explosions did make the news. but again, thats less personal than something that happens in our own backyard.
Texas is a big welfare state that wouldn't best Mexico if it wasn't supported by the productive states. The lack of regulations doesn't make the state a net earner... Now if they owned that oil instead of let a small group claim it... and dodge taxes maybe texas would contribute some $ for a change. Meanwhile most of New England pays far more to the feds than they get in return, so they should feel entitled to FREE wind farms because they've more than payed for it. Also, Texas schools suck and well, a whole lot more. Disclaimer, I've never been in either region.
Ignorant moron. Not even close to true. Texas is one of the bigger contributors to the federal coffers (9th in nation). Contribution per capita: ~9500$. Funding recieved in turn per capita: ~7200$. That's a net plus to the fed of ~2300$ per person living in the state of texas. $2300 per person, leaving the state. Texas is a net contributor, not a taker. Not a welfare state. For every dollar contributed to the fed, they recieved back only 0.75; phrased another way, they contribute 1.32 for every dollar they recieved back.
Also, you're claim that most of New England is a net contributor? Wrong also. New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland, and Maine, are all net takers from the Fed. That's 5 out of 11 states, or nearly half. (was going to post the list, but/. filters are throwing a fit because of the formatting)
ROFL. some android fanboi went through and modded down every single post replying to this joker about his claim that android is king of the gaming world...
The tens of millions of people playing Wow/swtor/rift/otherMMOs on windows (and another few million on linux) worldwide, along witht he 35+ million using Steam (also on windows and linux), and the millions and millions of others.... would all like to have a word with you. That word is "reality". You should try living in it sometime.
They compared a device to other devices that it's not really meant to be compared against. I mean seriously, it's in the very first paragraph: "better off buying a high end smartphone"... really? I want a game console, but this one is slower than a smartphone so i should buy a smart phone instead? How does that make any sense?
Oh I know, I'm in the market for a new truck for work, so let me compare it against these Vespas first...
And this before there's even any usable content on the device yet! Just more useless clickbait.
Slashdot Mirror
never take anything the whackydoo at infowars, or any of his brainwashed cronies, says seriously.
even if he says the sky is blue, you better double check first.
that's how crazy he (they) is.
in essence he's supporting the scientific ideal of "question everything, even me".
you may (even likely) be wrong...but you may be right.
and if you are, oh how interesting it is to pursue a brand new avenue of research that turns all of "accepted" science on its head.
and two more idiots for the ignore pile
you ignorant twit. it was discovered precisely because it IS something the civets eat, and eat regularly.
Checklist:
is it coffee? No
is it meant to replace coffee? Yes
Then coffee substitute is the proper terminology. If it didnt come from coffee beans, then its not coffee. that shouldnt be a difficult concept for you to grasp. You just failed to apply the proper marketing technique to open up a market for it.
it certainly tastes like crap
if that's what it takes....
(note that I compressed about 40 years of posturing and party migration into 1 run on sentence)
for what its worth, democrats were never "the anti racism" party.
they did become the party of the minorities, but only after the fact, and largely due to the migration of the southern democrats out of the party and the moderate republicans into it (and i say this as someone who usually votes democratic).
if you study your history, it was the republican party that fought for abolition, and the republican party who fought to civil rights. it was then in the midst of and because of the vietnam war and the social issues of the time (including, but not solely civil rights) as expanded by LBJ, that the parties began seeing members leave their parties to join the other as the parties bagan fracturing internally. the result was the loss of the "southern democrats" (and other "conservative" leaning democrats) to the republicans, and the loss of the "rockefeller republicans" (moderates, in favor of civil rights and social reforms, who used to control the party) to the democrats, and as a result the parties became more internally homogenized, and became what we know today. Remember, up until the 60s, the Democratic party was the party of the young white rural males, particularly in the south, standing up to The Man, standing for The Little Guy, etc etc. (contrast to teh most recent election where the party heads flatly said they would no longer even court the "white male" demographic)
The 9th Amendment would like to have a word with you concerning your lack of a proper Constitutional education:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's why no one likes to hear it. It's wrong, and only ignorant morons think we have no rights other than those listed in the USC.
The US is *not* a -DIRECT- democracy.
It's a democratic republic.
LMFTFY.
Your ignorance aside, yes, it is, a form of democracy.
The word Democracy does not in and of itself imply ONLY the form known as a "direct democracy".
The phrase "democratic repbulic" means exactly jack squat as far as "proving" we are not a democracy.
It's the equivalent of saying "The number 2 is *not* a number. It's an even number."
a democratic republic, or a representative democracy, or a parlamentary republic/democracy...they all mean the same damn thing. semantics aside, these constant "its not a democracy" statements are nothing more than ignorance, and attempts to obfuscate the issue. usually as a means to excuse certain behaviours and outcomes.
Both sides were right. Both the side claiming we needed a Bill of Rights to enumerate certain rights, and the side who thought it dangerous because then anything not written down would possibly be denied. The compromise being the 9th Amendment, which makes it VERY clear that the Bill of Rights is NOT intended to be the be all end all list of all rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thusly, where the people/society maintain that we do and should have a right to privacy, we de facto DO have precisely that right.
After all. Government BY the people, OF the people, and FOR the people....so that even though we elect reps to handle the daily chores of it, we are still a democracy, and the governemt is supposed to be an abstraction of us the people at large, enforcing our collective will.
Just because we have more important things to do than vote and execute parlimentary procedure all day, and thus elect reps to do it for us, doesnt make us "not a democracy" you ignorant dbag.
bad troll is still troll
hey look, its the android fanboy who in the other thread claimed android is the dominant gaming platform.
given your statement you probably also think that the Ouya article from earlier makes a totally relevant point that no one should buy the Ouya GAMING CONSOLE because its slower than any most recent ANDROID PHONES.
Because that's a totally relevant comparison..
just like comparing windows to Android and proclaiming Andoid dominant because its on more phones than Windows is on PCs....
1) an armed society is a polite society. simply inarguable. we have nothing to fear frm each other, only from those who live outside the law and would seek to make me a victim
2) most criminals give precisely 0 f**ks about gun laws. disarm every citizen, and everyone is equally ready to be a victim to anyone able to gain any advantage over them, be it through sheer size/strenght, or a gun illegally obtained. its like the naive hope that if we just dismantled our entire military, the rest of world would follow suite, and there would never be any war every again and everyone would just be one big happy family.
3) the NRA has a membership of only ~4million people.
4) meanwhile there are >180 million gun owners in the country, over half the population, 99.999% of which have never committed a crime, and never will
5) meaning the NRA represents only 2.2% of gun owners, possibly as many as double that in terms of folks who would jion and just havent. the rest dont give 2 f**ks about the NRA, even though the NRA claims to speak for them
6) the "militias" represent an even smaller portion of the populace than the NRA (making that an Appeal to the Extreme fallacy). its about as relevant as as painting all leftists as dope smoking free loving hippy communists.
7) guns would not have prevented this. and guns arent necesarily about fewer homicides. most homicides are between criminals anyway (re: #2), and no one really cares if they kill each other off. what people care about is innocent victims, bystanders, or otherwise defenseless persons who become victims to criminals. armed citizens are less likely to fall victim to an attack.
--
a woman walking down the street pushing a baby stroller in Georgia, 2 thugs rob her and shoots her baby in the head. no gun law would have prevented that. but if she had been carrying, she could have. its as simple as that.
guns arent always the answer, by any means. there's a concept called the "Continuum of Force". if someone shoves you, you dont pull a gun and shoot them in the head. a person with a gun who goes "cowboy" can be as dangerous as the criminal threat. and sometimes it is easier or safer to just hand over the wallet. but that's not something anyone on the outside of a situation can ever determine for someone else who's in that situation, especially in hindsight. it is the person in the moment who must make that decision, of how serious the threat is. ie whether its reached the point where serious bodily harm and/or death is likely outcome, and therefore use of deadly force is the best chance for survival.
ladies and gentlemen, this is your brain on ignorance.
partaking a bit too much of the 420 there dude.
he stated, making a claim that was out of date and inaccurate 3 years ago...
theres still the consideration that the USA is considered pretty much safe from these sorts of thing, while the same cannot be said of Iraq. that kinda has a lot to do with it too.
Yes, let's compare someplace considered generally safe with someplace considered generally not safe. Or a place and event that many people in our country are tied to in some way (even if only by the fast its our country) to a place (another country) that most people in our country arent tied to or impacted by.
also: FYI, your iraqi explosions did make the news. but again, thats less personal than something that happens in our own backyard.
What they're really worried about is their precious "views" from all that pricey beachfront property.
Hell, Texas even contributes nearly twice as much as California does, whiles running a very similar set of social programs
Texas is a big welfare state that wouldn't best Mexico if it wasn't supported by the productive states. The lack of regulations doesn't make the state a net earner... Now if they owned that oil instead of let a small group claim it... and dodge taxes maybe texas would contribute some $ for a change. Meanwhile most of New England pays far more to the feds than they get in return, so they should feel entitled to FREE wind farms because they've more than payed for it. Also, Texas schools suck and well, a whole lot more. Disclaimer, I've never been in either region.
Ignorant moron. Not even close to true. Texas is one of the bigger contributors to the federal coffers (9th in nation). Contribution per capita: ~9500$. Funding recieved in turn per capita: ~7200$. That's a net plus to the fed of ~2300$ per person living in the state of texas. $2300 per person, leaving the state. Texas is a net contributor, not a taker. Not a welfare state. For every dollar contributed to the fed, they recieved back only 0.75; phrased another way, they contribute 1.32 for every dollar they recieved back.
Also, you're claim that most of New England is a net contributor? Wrong also. New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland, and Maine, are all net takers from the Fed. That's 5 out of 11 states, or nearly half. /. filters are throwing a fit because of the formatting)
(was going to post the list, but
ROFL. some android fanboi went through and modded down every single post replying to this joker about his claim that android is king of the gaming world...
really?
that's what you're going with?
The tens of millions of people playing Wow/swtor/rift/otherMMOs on windows (and another few million on linux) worldwide, along witht he 35+ million using Steam (also on windows and linux), and the millions and millions of others .... would all like to have a word with you. That word is "reality". You should try living in it sometime.
They compared a device to other devices that it's not really meant to be compared against. I mean seriously, it's in the very first paragraph: "better off buying a high end smartphone" ... really? I want a game console, but this one is slower than a smartphone so i should buy a smart phone instead? How does that make any sense?
Oh I know, I'm in the market for a new truck for work, so let me compare it against these Vespas first...
And this before there's even any usable content on the device yet!
Just more useless clickbait.