it's not a myth. and iit was far more than "just a fragment". the tax penalty "punishment" came from them too. really, the only things dems did was tack on minimum coverage, and a public optopn (that later got dropped).
you folks can try to whitewash the history all you want. but no one is falling for it.
it's not a myth. and iit was far more than "just a fragment". the tax penalty "punishment" came from them too. really, the only things dems did was tack on minimum coverage, and a public optopn (that later got dropped).
you folks can try to whitewash the history all you want. but no one is falling for it.
yes, and while i agree people are bad at diagnosing risk, there are other factors that contribute to our perception of relative danger. such as the ability of us to fight back or otherwise react to a developing situation, or the scale of potential harm.
air travel is safer than driving. yet air travel is far far more tightly regulated and controlled in terms of safety, both because as a passenger theres very little we can do in event of a accident, and because the number of people exposed to harm in any one event. car mishaps are also more survivable than aircraft, even if the aircraft relative rate of mishaps is lower. ie, more likely to walk away from a car mishap than airliner.
you mention a mass drug overdose (or possible poisoning by the sound). again, that's far more survivable than a gunshot wound. again, while the odds of firearm involvement are lower, the odds of irrecoverable harm when they are involved, is far higher.
we can even consider this on things as simple as the idea of locking our doors at night. its all a part of risk management and preventive caution.
first they would have to admit that those countries exist, that its possible we can learn from them, and that this isn't the first time these problems have ever been encountered in the history of humanity.
everything he does is in his official capacity because unlike many political positions the office of the presidency rests in his person. again you prove you know nothing
no, the lawyers would not be the ones making the interpreatation. rather, under such a law the lawyer bringing the suit would have to prove somehow what is misleading and what is accurate, which would mean bringing in evidence, just like any other suit. evidence that would consist of scientific papers and expert testimony from actual scientists. any attempts to present inaccurate science in court would then also be wide open to rebuttal by presenting of peer reviews and counter arguing science.
All you've shown is that: 1: you don't actually comprehend what Title 9 does 2: you don't actually comprehend how FAFSA loans work 3: you don't actually comprehend what that article is saying
Slashdot Mirror
whitewash history much?
it's not a myth. and iit was far more than "just a fragment". the tax penalty "punishment" came from them too.
really, the only things dems did was tack on minimum coverage, and a public optopn (that later got dropped).
you folks can try to whitewash the history all you want.
but no one is falling for it.
http://americablog.com/2013/10...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...
https://healthcarereform.proco...
and of course, the original document, in full, for your reading pleasure: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws....
whitewash history much?
it's not a myth. and iit was far more than "just a fragment". the tax penalty "punishment" came from them too.
really, the only things dems did was tack on minimum coverage, and a public optopn (that later got dropped).
you folks can try to whitewash the history all you want.
but no one is falling for it.
yes, and while i agree people are bad at diagnosing risk, there are other factors that contribute to our perception of relative danger.
such as the ability of us to fight back or otherwise react to a developing situation, or the scale of potential harm.
air travel is safer than driving.
yet air travel is far far more tightly regulated and controlled in terms of safety, both because as a passenger theres very little we can do in event of a accident, and because the number of people exposed to harm in any one event. car mishaps are also more survivable than aircraft, even if the aircraft relative rate of mishaps is lower. ie, more likely to walk away from a car mishap than airliner.
you mention a mass drug overdose (or possible poisoning by the sound). again, that's far more survivable than a gunshot wound.
again, while the odds of firearm involvement are lower, the odds of irrecoverable harm when they are involved, is far higher.
we can even consider this on things as simple as the idea of locking our doors at night.
its all a part of risk management and preventive caution.
first they would have to admit that those countries exist, that its possible we can learn from them, and that this isn't the first time these problems have ever been encountered in the history of humanity.
it's what ive said before: "he was a law abiding owner....until he wasn't."
everything he does is in his official capacity because unlike many political positions the office of the presidency rests in his person.
again you prove you know nothing
this is where you prove once again that you don't know what youre talking about
this
Deer don't shoot back.
still spouting falsehoods I see
no, the lawyers would not be the ones making the interpreatation.
rather, under such a law the lawyer bringing the suit would have to prove somehow what is misleading and what is accurate, which would mean bringing in evidence, just like any other suit. evidence that would consist of scientific papers and expert testimony from actual scientists. any attempts to present inaccurate science in court would then also be wide open to rebuttal by presenting of peer reviews and counter arguing science.
so again: you prove that understand nothing
All you've shown is that:
1: you don't actually comprehend what Title 9 does
2: you don't actually comprehend how FAFSA loans work
3: you don't actually comprehend what that article is saying
Par for the course regarding your comments.
Wrong again.
like I said: fun.
and Peter Weller keeps turning up on all my favorite shows lately.
well, this and Longmire anyway.
he's great.
cause Picard and Riker were never ever friends with emotional bonds, right?
whats it like in your fantasy world?
bigots gonna bigot.
again: wrong.
Last Ship is a fun show.
captians doing things themselves regardless of risk?
plot building?
in star trek?
NO WAY!
the bigot speaks.
even though no one really cares what drivel pours out of its mouth.
probably assigned that flight level by ATC.
if it wasn't a military helo it would have been a civilian one.
the problem isn't the military helo.
its the irresponsible drone pilot.
"easy to store barrels"
that have to be monitored and kept safe for the next 10000 years.
no thanks.
the only bad science here is your false claim that the hockey stick is wrong.