the only BS here is your ignorant bigotry. and apparently you've never heard dominionists, even though one is running for president right now, or the Israelis bulldozing Palestinian homes, or folks like the Dearborn shooter. seriously, the filter is strong with you.
He embarrassed Castro in public on live Cuban TV about exactly those human rights issues at their bilateral press conference. http://www.politico.com/story/...
Not that the RW media is covering it. All they've done the past 24 hours is talk about Obama daring to let his picture be taken while a giant Che monument was in the background... in a foreign nation's capitol, where such things tend to exist... and much wailing and gnashing of teeth has ensued.
I swear if the man walked on water they'd say he can't swim.
Probably has something to do with his deporting more people than the previous 3 presidents combined, and net immigration from Mexico being not just 0, but negative. IE, they're going back (btw, didn't Romney have a dream about that?).
I know its shocking...but foreign countries also have monuments to their cultural or political heroes too. We've got monuments to just as bad if not worse. Southern states still celebrate men who fought to retain slavery.
also, you give Reagan far too much credit, both for the allusion to ending communism, and to reducing the legacy of Lenin. the person who did the most to undermine Lenin's legacy was Stalin.
maybe because Lenin, like Mao, or Che, or Lincoln, is only really important in one nation. and yes, there are still plenty of Lenin statues around Russia, and hes still seen as a great leader there, with his tomb being a very popular destination.
this may come as a shock to you...but the US isn't the only nation in the world to have large public displays of its cultural heroes, especially in its capitol.
but if you cant remember that, you may have also forgotten the Bitburg Controversy, another (in a series) and embarrassing incidents for Reagan.
it doesn't matter if you add 1% or 20%, you've still upset the equilibrium, upsetting the balance of the climate. and that bit you add every year is like an investment in the future, only this case its a bad one, as it just keeps compounding and compounding.
science as its meant to be done involves evidence, of which you have none. science as its meant to be done is more than just saying "im only asking questions".
you got questions? great. they've probably already been answered.
see this great big pile of evidence? if you want to be treated seriously as a 'skeptic', you need to gather an equally large pile of evidence if you want to be taken seriously. until then, you're just a crank whos ignoring the existing evidence, that is only growing larger by the day.
they aren't just trying to have their taxes raised. they are trying to fix a systemic problem that will eventually result in the loss of their income security as well.
take it our far enough and long enough, and we can even get a repeat of the French Revolution, which while being the event that led to the democratizing and liberalizing of the western world, also involved an awful lot of involuntary cranial separation.
and we should force them all to pay more. the richer you are, the more you benefit from the society (and government) that has supported you. therefore the more you should pay is return.
the greatest period of prosperity this nation ever had (or humanity in general) happened when the rich were taxed the most, we gave free college to nearly half the working population (ie, the WWII and Korean veterans), had a high livable minimum wage.
the concentration of wealth only further exacerbates stagnant economies as it only floats the boats of the few, and powerful. and as the less powerful get poorer, and spend less and consume less, these folks know that eventually their ride will come to and end because you cant have a consumer economy when no one is left to consume.
redistribution lifts all boats, and in the end allows the rich to get richer for longer and with more stability than the next quarter projections economy that exists now.
and spends much of remaining money on philanthropy. philanthropy he himself says shouldn't be necessary if the government safety net programs were properly funded. there are economies of scale to government support that even he cant match.
our PBS is similarly largely supported through private means, but that doesn't stop the idiots here from trying to cancel the meager sum the government does send its way.
technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the public rarely deals with technical definitions.
all pedantic arguments aside, no, "GMO" 's common usage clearly refers to gene splicing/manipulating. any label required by law will also necessarily also be defined by law. and that definition will more than likely conform to the common accepted usage, rather than the technical.
Slashdot Mirror
the only BS here is your ignorant bigotry.
and apparently you've never heard dominionists, even though one is running for president right now, or the Israelis bulldozing Palestinian homes, or folks like the Dearborn shooter.
seriously, the filter is strong with you.
luckily we don't have to rely on your obviously faulty memory
ask and ye shall receive!
http://www.politico.com/story/...
well today's your lucky day!
He embarrassed Castro in public on live Cuban TV about exactly those human rights issues at their bilateral press conference.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Not that the RW media is covering it.
All they've done the past 24 hours is talk about Obama daring to let his picture be taken while a giant Che monument was in the background...
in a foreign nation's capitol, where such things tend to exist...
and much wailing and gnashing of teeth has ensued.
I swear if the man walked on water they'd say he can't swim.
we're talking about Obama, not Bush.
How does any sane person not see that?
Probably has something to do with his deporting more people than the previous 3 presidents combined, and net immigration from Mexico being not just 0, but negative. IE, they're going back (btw, didn't Romney have a dream about that?).
why you shouldn't:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
I know its shocking...but foreign countries also have monuments to their cultural or political heroes too.
We've got monuments to just as bad if not worse. Southern states still celebrate men who fought to retain slavery.
Bonus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
also, you give Reagan far too much credit, both for the allusion to ending communism, and to reducing the legacy of Lenin.
the person who did the most to undermine Lenin's legacy was Stalin.
maybe because Lenin, like Mao, or Che, or Lincoln, is only really important in one nation.
and yes, there are still plenty of Lenin statues around Russia, and hes still seen as a great leader there, with his tomb being a very popular destination.
this may come as a shock to you...but the US isn't the only nation in the world to have large public displays of its cultural heroes, especially in its capitol.
but if you cant remember that, you may have also forgotten the Bitburg Controversy, another (in a series) and embarrassing incidents for Reagan.
the projection is strong with this one.
the only one round here typing with any sort of religious fervor... ... is you
and that 96% was in equilibrium.
it doesn't matter if you add 1% or 20%, you've still upset the equilibrium, upsetting the balance of the climate.
and that bit you add every year is like an investment in the future, only this case its a bad one, as it just keeps compounding and compounding.
the only ideologues clouding the waters are people like you.
exactly like you are, RIGHT NOW.
who said you were?
you did when you started uttering nonsense, such as trying to stretch out to Marxism.
and now the 'we cant trust the scientists' bit, card #1294 in the shill playbook.
science as its meant to be done involves evidence, of which you have none.
science as its meant to be done is more than just saying "im only asking questions".
you got questions? great. they've probably already been answered.
see this great big pile of evidence? if you want to be treated seriously as a 'skeptic', you need to gather an equally large pile of evidence if you want to be taken seriously. until then, you're just a crank whos ignoring the existing evidence, that is only growing larger by the day.
they aren't just trying to have their taxes raised.
they are trying to fix a systemic problem that will eventually result in the loss of their income security as well.
take it our far enough and long enough, and we can even get a repeat of the French Revolution, which while being the event that led to the democratizing and liberalizing of the western world, also involved an awful lot of involuntary cranial separation.
expecting rational thought from mi is like wishing blood from a stone.
and we should force them all to pay more.
the richer you are, the more you benefit from the society (and government) that has supported you.
therefore the more you should pay is return.
the greatest period of prosperity this nation ever had (or humanity in general) happened when the rich were taxed the most, we gave free college to nearly half the working population (ie, the WWII and Korean veterans), had a high livable minimum wage.
the concentration of wealth only further exacerbates stagnant economies as it only floats the boats of the few, and powerful. and as the less powerful get poorer, and spend less and consume less, these folks know that eventually their ride will come to and end because you cant have a consumer economy when no one is left to consume.
redistribution lifts all boats, and in the end allows the rich to get richer for longer and with more stability than the next quarter projections economy that exists now.
what a perfect illustration of why no one cares what the WSJ thinks.
retired couple with 180k income?
single mother with 260k?
and look how sad they all are.
what dreck.
its a good analogy, you're just a fool.
and spends much of remaining money on philanthropy.
philanthropy he himself says shouldn't be necessary if the government safety net programs were properly funded.
there are economies of scale to government support that even he cant match.
our PBS is similarly largely supported through private means, but that doesn't stop the idiots here from trying to cancel the meager sum the government does send its way.
a) they don't have to land to cause damage.
b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the public rarely deals with technical definitions.
all pedantic arguments aside, no, "GMO" 's common usage clearly refers to gene splicing/manipulating.
any label required by law will also necessarily also be defined by law. and that definition will
more than likely conform to the common accepted usage, rather than the technical.