Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed. Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
Mohammed was not the best Prophet, his importance in Islam comes from him being the last Prophet (according to most sects). It could even be argued that in Islam that Jesus is more important, as Muslims also believe that he will be the one to return on the Day of Judgement and defeat the False Messiah.
The divinity of Jesus was debated often in early Christianity, until 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea (arguably the debate continued afterwards as well). Also, there are many non-Catholic sects today that reject the idea of the Trinity. Your argument that they don't share common roots because of the belief in the divinity of Jesus, or the Trinity, is ignorant of the history of both Religions.
Jews also don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, so would you say that Christianity doesn't have roots in Judaism by the same token?
... it would be even more expensive to just ignore the program and give everyone what they want...
Maybe, it depends. Spending extra on equipment can allow people to work more efficiently. If she's already familiar with a BB (which I think was the reason mentioned in a previous article) then it could actually save time (read: money) to give her one. Rather than having her have to be trained/learn to use a new device, and then take a lot of time to get comfortable with it.
Our civil servants, especially at that level, should get special perks if it makes them better able to do their job. I doubt Obama has to buy his own groceries, but I'm OK with that since I'd rather not have him running down to Piggly Wiggly every week to get milk.
I didn't say it was just the GOP. We're talking about them because they control the Senate.
Also, I wouldn't say that Sotomayor and Kagan received significant support from the GOP, but they did get some (9 and 5 votes respectively, IIRC). You're also cherry-picking your results a bit. You mentioned Alito and Thomas, but skipped Roberts. He was appointed only a few months before Alito, and got 22 votes from Democrats. That's what I would call significant support, just barely.
Not what I said. To reiterate the order of events:
1. bugs2squash insinuated that the Republican's don't believe any Democratic President should be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices 2. You responded by saying that Obama has already had 2 appointments confirmed 3. I mentioned that these were approved by a Democratic Senate, with the votes being mostly along party lines (i.e. most Republicans voted against it)
My point in #3 was that #1 and #2 do not have to be mutually exclusive, i.e. Republicans can be opposed to Democrat appointees, and Obama still could have his appointees approved. It had nothing to do with whether I think the power of the Senate should change based on who's in control of it. Are we cool now?
I totally agree, I think the way we appoint Supreme Court justices now is perfectly fine. I was just pointing out to the GP that they wouldn't have a say in whether or not it was changed. I can see how my "good luck" statement at the end could be misinterpreted as support, but I was really just pointing out the unlikelihood of any amendment being ratified in the current political climate.
I said that as the field narrows it may hurt Trump (it also may not). It depends how the votes break from the candidates that drop out. Trump has won ~35% of the vote, if Cruz is his only opponent and consolidates the remaining votes, all of a sudden Trump goes from winning to losing badly. It also depends on how the "unbound" delegates (i.e. those won by candidates no longer in the race) vote in the convention, assuming Trump does not pass 50% of delegates before that.
The reason Hillary has only one opponent is because she is a strong candidate, not the other way around. The Republican field has remained so wide because no one is running away with a clear majority. If someone was winning 58% of the vote like she is, there would likely not be more than 2 candidates in the Republican race.
Trump was winning prior to March 15th - and those were ALL proportional primaries.
South Carolina was winner-take-all. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Maine, Puerto Rico, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, and Washington DC were winner-take-most. This means that in order to win any delegates, you must pass a threshold, and a candidate with a majority wins them all.
In Vermont, for example, Trump had 33% and Kasich had 30%, they each got 8 delegates. Cruz had 10% and Rubio had 19%, but they didn't get any. The effect this has is more noticeable in a wider field. Take Cruz and Carson out of the race, and distribute their ~15% evenly among the other candidates: Trump gets 38%, Kasich 35%, and Rubio 24% (putting him above the 20% threshold). Now Trump gets 6 delegates, Kasich gets 6, and Rubio gets 4. So Trump got more of the vote with less opponents, but actually did worse.
All of these reasons and more are why your direct comparison in the GP between Hillary and Trump was flawed. Delegates matter, not states.
every Supreme Court Nominee rejected by the Senate [wikipedia.org] in the last 100 years has been a Republican nominee; so it's the Democrats who haven't been shy about shooting down nominations
While technically true, this is misleading. In the last century, the Senate has rejected 4 Supreme Court appointees (out of around 60 total). All from Republican presidents, and three while the Democrats controlled the Senate.
The Democrats have controlled the Senate for 62 of the last 100 years. So they have 75% of the rejections, while controlling the Senate 62% of the time. Given the incredibly small sample size (each rejection represents 25% of the total), this is well within a reasonable margin of error. Not exactly a strong pattern of behavior.
If anything, these numbers show is that both parties have been largely accommodating to appointees. Far more often than not, they are confirmed, regardless of who controls the Presidency and who controls the Senate.
If you're counting cases where no action was taken or the nominee was withdrawn, then your statement is even less correct. Counting these also gets complicated. Sometimes no action was taken at first and then the same appointee is confirmed by the same Senate. Or an appointee is withdrawn for other reasons, such as when Bush withdrew Roberts, who had been appointed to be an Associate Justice, so that he could then be appointed to Chief Justice.
If someone wanted to kill Scalia, why wait this long to do it? Could have avoided all the "election year appointment" controversy. Also, the killer would totally leave the pillow over his head after smothering him. Gotta give the cops something to work with, right?
The point of the primaries is not to win states, but to win delegates. He has around 47% of pledged delegates so far, while Hillary has around 59%. Since Democratic primaries are mostly proportional, this means she's won about the same percentage of voters. Trump on the other hand is being helped by winner-take-all states, or states where proportions are dependent on passing a threshold.
It's still not clear whether he'll make it on the first ballot or not (i.e. go into the convention with >50% of delegates). As the field narrows, it may hurt Trump as he has only managed to pick up a plurality of votes so far, not a majority. For example, in the next Republican primary, Arizona, he's only polling in the high 30s (albeit still ahead of Cruz and Kasich). Again, because Arizona is a winner-take-all state, Trump will still get all 58 delegates with only ~35% of the vote.
I think they want to have the seats voted for like all the other positions. I'd be a colder day in hell before any sitting justice would allow that.
The justices wouldn't get a say in such a change. It would have to come about from a Constitutional amendment. That being said, good luck getting 3/4 of the states to agree on anything nowadays.
You can't read, the exact words my ellipsis chopped off were "thought's and". Also, you are completely wrong.
You go into the woods and have a conversation with someone in private. Later, you stand accused of a crime, and that person is called to testify against you. The conversation in the woods comes up in the questioning, and the witness may: a) testify as to what was said, b) commit perjury, or c) refuse to answer the question (potentially resulting in them being held in contempt). Assuming they are not going to risk jail time for you, they choose a), which means the conversation is now evidence. No one's rights have been violated.
Let's take an extreme example. A wife-beating husband threatens to kill his wife, in the privacy of their home, if she goes to the police. Are you saying that conversation should not be able to be brought in as evidence against the husband if she decides to press charges or get a restraining order?
Slashdot Mirror
Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed. Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
Mohammed was not the best Prophet, his importance in Islam comes from him being the last Prophet (according to most sects). It could even be argued that in Islam that Jesus is more important, as Muslims also believe that he will be the one to return on the Day of Judgement and defeat the False Messiah.
The divinity of Jesus was debated often in early Christianity, until 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea (arguably the debate continued afterwards as well). Also, there are many non-Catholic sects today that reject the idea of the Trinity. Your argument that they don't share common roots because of the belief in the divinity of Jesus, or the Trinity, is ignorant of the history of both Religions.
Jews also don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, so would you say that Christianity doesn't have roots in Judaism by the same token?
sexual organs or an hotdog cooker
Be careful not to get the 2 mixed up...
Honestly, I'd rather just have 2 phones, like a drug dealer.
... it would be even more expensive to just ignore the program and give everyone what they want...
Maybe, it depends. Spending extra on equipment can allow people to work more efficiently. If she's already familiar with a BB (which I think was the reason mentioned in a previous article) then it could actually save time (read: money) to give her one. Rather than having her have to be trained/learn to use a new device, and then take a lot of time to get comfortable with it.
Our civil servants, especially at that level, should get special perks if it makes them better able to do their job. I doubt Obama has to buy his own groceries, but I'm OK with that since I'd rather not have him running down to Piggly Wiggly every week to get milk.
Ahem, that's The Donald.
I never thought I would see the day where shoes would be battery powered.
You don't remember LA Lights from the early 90s? Those things were the shit.
The reason she only has one opponent, is because nobody wants to run against the Clinton machine.
I fail to see the difference between this and what I said.
I didn't say it was just the GOP. We're talking about them because they control the Senate.
Also, I wouldn't say that Sotomayor and Kagan received significant support from the GOP, but they did get some (9 and 5 votes respectively, IIRC). You're also cherry-picking your results a bit. You mentioned Alito and Thomas, but skipped Roberts. He was appointed only a few months before Alito, and got 22 votes from Democrats. That's what I would call significant support, just barely.
Not what I said. To reiterate the order of events:
1. bugs2squash insinuated that the Republican's don't believe any Democratic President should be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices
2. You responded by saying that Obama has already had 2 appointments confirmed
3. I mentioned that these were approved by a Democratic Senate, with the votes being mostly along party lines (i.e. most Republicans voted against it)
My point in #3 was that #1 and #2 do not have to be mutually exclusive, i.e. Republicans can be opposed to Democrat appointees, and Obama still could have his appointees approved. It had nothing to do with whether I think the power of the Senate should change based on who's in control of it. Are we cool now?
I totally agree, I think the way we appoint Supreme Court justices now is perfectly fine. I was just pointing out to the GP that they wouldn't have a say in whether or not it was changed. I can see how my "good luck" statement at the end could be misinterpreted as support, but I was really just pointing out the unlikelihood of any amendment being ratified in the current political climate.
I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the Republicans knuckled under to Obama's agenda.
I didn't say you weren't entitled to your opinion, I just disagreed with what I thought you were saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding! :D
I said that as the field narrows it may hurt Trump (it also may not). It depends how the votes break from the candidates that drop out. Trump has won ~35% of the vote, if Cruz is his only opponent and consolidates the remaining votes, all of a sudden Trump goes from winning to losing badly. It also depends on how the "unbound" delegates (i.e. those won by candidates no longer in the race) vote in the convention, assuming Trump does not pass 50% of delegates before that.
The reason Hillary has only one opponent is because she is a strong candidate, not the other way around. The Republican field has remained so wide because no one is running away with a clear majority. If someone was winning 58% of the vote like she is, there would likely not be more than 2 candidates in the Republican race.
Trump was winning prior to March 15th - and those were ALL proportional primaries.
South Carolina was winner-take-all. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Maine, Puerto Rico, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, and Washington DC were winner-take-most. This means that in order to win any delegates, you must pass a threshold, and a candidate with a majority wins them all.
In Vermont, for example, Trump had 33% and Kasich had 30%, they each got 8 delegates. Cruz had 10% and Rubio had 19%, but they didn't get any. The effect this has is more noticeable in a wider field. Take Cruz and Carson out of the race, and distribute their ~15% evenly among the other candidates: Trump gets 38%, Kasich 35%, and Rubio 24% (putting him above the 20% threshold). Now Trump gets 6 delegates, Kasich gets 6, and Rubio gets 4. So Trump got more of the vote with less opponents, but actually did worse.
All of these reasons and more are why your direct comparison in the GP between Hillary and Trump was flawed. Delegates matter, not states.
Each car gets installed with a 3D printer, and it can now download and fabricate it's own replacement parts!
every Supreme Court Nominee rejected by the Senate [wikipedia.org] in the last 100 years has been a Republican nominee; so it's the Democrats who haven't been shy about shooting down nominations
While technically true, this is misleading. In the last century, the Senate has rejected 4 Supreme Court appointees (out of around 60 total). All from Republican presidents, and three while the Democrats controlled the Senate.
The Democrats have controlled the Senate for 62 of the last 100 years. So they have 75% of the rejections, while controlling the Senate 62% of the time. Given the incredibly small sample size (each rejection represents 25% of the total), this is well within a reasonable margin of error. Not exactly a strong pattern of behavior.
If anything, these numbers show is that both parties have been largely accommodating to appointees. Far more often than not, they are confirmed, regardless of who controls the Presidency and who controls the Senate.
If you're counting cases where no action was taken or the nominee was withdrawn, then your statement is even less correct. Counting these also gets complicated. Sometimes no action was taken at first and then the same appointee is confirmed by the same Senate. Or an appointee is withdrawn for other reasons, such as when Bush withdrew Roberts, who had been appointed to be an Associate Justice, so that he could then be appointed to Chief Justice.
If someone wanted to kill Scalia, why wait this long to do it? Could have avoided all the "election year appointment" controversy. Also, the killer would totally leave the pillow over his head after smothering him. Gotta give the cops something to work with, right?
Both of those nominations happened while the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the votes were largely (but not entirely) along party lines.
The point of the primaries is not to win states, but to win delegates. He has around 47% of pledged delegates so far, while Hillary has around 59%. Since Democratic primaries are mostly proportional, this means she's won about the same percentage of voters. Trump on the other hand is being helped by winner-take-all states, or states where proportions are dependent on passing a threshold.
It's still not clear whether he'll make it on the first ballot or not (i.e. go into the convention with >50% of delegates). As the field narrows, it may hurt Trump as he has only managed to pick up a plurality of votes so far, not a majority. For example, in the next Republican primary, Arizona, he's only polling in the high 30s (albeit still ahead of Cruz and Kasich). Again, because Arizona is a winner-take-all state, Trump will still get all 58 delegates with only ~35% of the vote.
If the Republicans refuse to show, I'm pretty sure the vote can happen anyway, wouldn't they just count as abstentions? Also...
Someone like a Trump, how does not give a fuck. The people seem to want it...
If by "the people" you mean ~35% of the people who have voted in the Republican primaries, then yeah...
Republican voters are fed up with the way their representatives have knuckled under to the President's agenda
Wow, I'd love to find a wormhole to whatever Universe you're in where this actually happened, because it sure as hell didn't happen in mine.
This is why we should implement the Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
I think they want to have the seats voted for like all the other positions. I'd be a colder day in hell before any sitting justice would allow that.
The justices wouldn't get a say in such a change. It would have to come about from a Constitutional amendment. That being said, good luck getting 3/4 of the states to agree on anything nowadays.
70s
I'd love to see a tank being controlled by an AI developed using Combat.
What about Twisted Metal?
You can't read, the exact words my ellipsis chopped off were "thought's and". Also, you are completely wrong.
You go into the woods and have a conversation with someone in private. Later, you stand accused of a crime, and that person is called to testify against you. The conversation in the woods comes up in the questioning, and the witness may: a) testify as to what was said, b) commit perjury, or c) refuse to answer the question (potentially resulting in them being held in contempt). Assuming they are not going to risk jail time for you, they choose a), which means the conversation is now evidence. No one's rights have been violated.
Let's take an extreme example. A wife-beating husband threatens to kill his wife, in the privacy of their home, if she goes to the police. Are you saying that conversation should not be able to be brought in as evidence against the husband if she decides to press charges or get a restraining order?
That is of course not the mainstream view, though
Only if most people haven't actually read the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law...).
Oh, right..