Isn't it a genetically proven fact that all human women share the same mother?
nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today
Does any of that mean we don't all share a common female ancestor?
A false dilemma may take the form: If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
"Nothing else" means "no special handling." Sorting equipment for letter-class mail expects paper, which unlike DVDs can be curved and bent with no ill results.
"Competitive." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means they can comply with the order without overcoming the financial/regulatory inertia involved in juggling funds earmarked for "market dominant" services. Otherwise the USPS will have to provide special services now with money they won't be able to touch for at least a year.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The AC to Whom You reply did not equate Ms. Huffington with government.
He equated Huffington with "the British." Before ~1775, "the British" were the government, hence the revolutionary pamphlets to begin with.
Plus, the Owners of said press at the time of the revolution did not find specifying the identities of the Pamphleteers so important as to require attribution.
The publishers almost certainly had personal knowledge of the authors, though. At this point, HuffPo doesn't even have that much.
Even if They had, the fact remains One cannot fully critique and/or criticize policy/Politicians if the Owners of the press require "true names".
Then use a press other than HuffPo's, or buy your own.
So they got a court opinion that said it was unconstitutional, yet they just ignored it.
With one exception, a federal court can only do what Congress empowers it to do. If Congress doesn't give their secret court any teeth, that's the end of it.
First and foremost, Ariana Huffington is not the government. Otherwise there'd be a lot more sideboob in Congress...
Beyond that, those anonymous pamphleteers you mentioned got their works published because the owners of the printing presses consented to the publishing of the specific tracts in question; Whether or not they printed a particular piece by a particular person was wholly by their own prerogative. Here, Huffington owns the printing-press equivalent, and has decided to limit the use of her resources just a bit more narrowly than "Anybody can come along and post GNAA spam."
Then as now, freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.
"No True Scotsman" involves moving goalposts. Alcohol abuse is a well-documented, well-defined medical condition; the only "goalpost-moving" here is movement from the OP's self-diagnosis.
Or are you honestly trying to defend all the first-hand accounts of users of homeopathy, chiropractic, faith healing and the like?
"What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."
Four months ago we didn't see this NSA datamining to begin with. Just because we don't "see" it doesn't mean it isn't actually happening.
Going on prime time TV and constantly repeating "Trust me on this" isn't going to get him very far. After all, why are these (supposed) changes so needful now and not four months ago? If we were to take Obama and the intelligence committees at their words, the only thing that has changed in these programs in the past four months is that we know about them, so why are these "changes" necessary now?
The votes failed, and Congress (or at least the folks on the intelligence committees) knew about these programs the entire time.
It's not White House versus Congress or Republican versus Democrat. Everyone's on the same page except the voters, and everyone wants Snowden waterboarded to the fullest extent of the unpublished law.
Perhaps, but right now it's the best way of preventing a second Sino-Japanese War. China trusts the US military much more than they do a Japanese military, and US abandonment of the region would trigger an arms race (conventional and otherwise) that would make Indian-Pakistani relations look warm and fuzzy.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt any plaintiff could have any sort of standing without having already signed several mandatory arbitration clauses.
Sorry, but no. There is no requirement for letter-class mail to be paper nor be bendable.
http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/101.htm#1039555
Isn't it a genetically proven fact that all human women share the same mother?
nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today
Does any of that mean we don't all share a common female ancestor?
A false dilemma may take the form: If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
"Nothing else" means "no special handling." Sorting equipment for letter-class mail expects paper, which unlike DVDs can be curved and bent with no ill results.
"Competitive." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means they can comply with the order without overcoming the financial/regulatory inertia involved in juggling funds earmarked for "market dominant" services. Otherwise the USPS will have to provide special services now with money they won't be able to touch for at least a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I want a _Surface_Table_ because _I_need_a_neat_keyboard_on_a_tablet_.
I want a _Surface_Table_ because _I_need_USB_Port_.
Except I got an ASUS Transformer with both of those for half the price.
72 geeky virgins.
Wahabism frowns upon homosexuality.
/sigh
We do have a shortage of good applicants.
For the pay that you're offering.
Every other court can escalate to the exception.
Emphasis mine:
The AC to Whom You reply did not equate Ms. Huffington with government.
He equated Huffington with "the British." Before ~1775, "the British" were the government, hence the revolutionary pamphlets to begin with.
Plus, the Owners of said press at the time of the revolution did not find specifying the identities of the Pamphleteers so important as to require attribution.
The publishers almost certainly had personal knowledge of the authors, though. At this point, HuffPo doesn't even have that much.
Even if They had, the fact remains One cannot fully critique and/or criticize policy/Politicians if the Owners of the press require "true names".
Then use a press other than HuffPo's, or buy your own.
So they got a court opinion that said it was unconstitutional, yet they just ignored it.
With one exception, a federal court can only do what Congress empowers it to do. If Congress doesn't give their secret court any teeth, that's the end of it.
First and foremost, Ariana Huffington is not the government. Otherwise there'd be a lot more sideboob in Congress...
Beyond that, those anonymous pamphleteers you mentioned got their works published because the owners of the printing presses consented to the publishing of the specific tracts in question; Whether or not they printed a particular piece by a particular person was wholly by their own prerogative. Here, Huffington owns the printing-press equivalent, and has decided to limit the use of her resources just a bit more narrowly than "Anybody can come along and post GNAA spam."
Then as now, freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.
When a collector breaks the law, seek legal representation.
And pay the lawyer with the money you don't have to give to the debt collectors? Law school costs money too, after all.
That's some catch there...
You're conflating "Muslims" with "Islamists."
"No True Scotsman" involves moving goalposts. Alcohol abuse is a well-documented, well-defined medical condition; the only "goalpost-moving" here is movement from the OP's self-diagnosis.
Or are you honestly trying to defend all the first-hand accounts of users of homeopathy, chiropractic, faith healing and the like?
"What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."
Four months ago we didn't see this NSA datamining to begin with. Just because we don't "see" it doesn't mean it isn't actually happening.
Going on prime time TV and constantly repeating "Trust me on this" isn't going to get him very far. After all, why are these (supposed) changes so needful now and not four months ago? If we were to take Obama and the intelligence committees at their words, the only thing that has changed in these programs in the past four months is that we know about them, so why are these "changes" necessary now?
Money spent to combat malaria must be worlds better for improving the human condition than money spent to support Senator Inhofe.
Corporations are people too, my friend.
Most of these shows can be watched legitimately at cbs.com, but CBS is currently blocking anybody with a TimeWarner Cable IP address.
The votes failed, and Congress (or at least the folks on the intelligence committees) knew about these programs the entire time.
It's not White House versus Congress or Republican versus Democrat. Everyone's on the same page except the voters, and everyone wants Snowden waterboarded to the fullest extent of the unpublished law.
Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.
Perhaps, but right now it's the best way of preventing a second Sino-Japanese War. China trusts the US military much more than they do a Japanese military, and US abandonment of the region would trigger an arms race (conventional and otherwise) that would make Indian-Pakistani relations look warm and fuzzy.
It's not just about money, it's also about control and convenience for management.
Oh, you can get that kind of "control and convenience" from American workers too, just not at the offered price.
So ultimately it is about the money.