It seems to me that you would be very surprised what kind of things there is room for at a University. There is plenty of pseudoscience going on in all manner of subject fields. Just look for the departments that have political or ideological litmus tests for its faculty and students and you will find it.
The conspiracy goes deeper than the GOP. The National Academy of Science is also involved - http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2.... How dare they criticize the science of these holy warriors? A pox upon both of their houses.
Don't forget Colonel Sanders - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face - he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly
Faith in the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is easy to have. People generally act in their own self interest, which is the same reason that blind faith in the government is nuts.
That's funny - I worked with a lady in 1999 that claimed to have 10 years of HTML experience on her resume. We figured she was writing code in hopes of a browser that would some day run it.
Hold it just a minute cowboy. Don't get caught up on wording that you don't understand. Courts consider cases. The case here is whether they should reinstate the law or not. So they will consider reinstating the ban, that is NOT a prejudicial phrase, it is common usage when talking about court cases. Your last statement is very odd, as they will hear the case and make a decision the affects it. Any decision will absolutely have something to do with the ban, either to affirm the stay or affirm the ban.
You said you're from Arizona, but you don't know the law very well. You cannot carry in restaurants or bars that serve alcohol that is served on the premisis. There is a bill being proposed that would change this, but for the time being no guns in bars and most sit down restaurants.
Why don't you use the whole quote. I hate when people use ellipsis to exclude important parts of a quote.
quote in full
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
This is something that bothers me very much. People that think tax breaks are "tantamount to government support". As the Supreme Court ruled - "The ability to tax is the ability to destroy". If the gov taxed legitimate religions it would have the power to destroy them. This is contrary to the spirit of the 1st amendment. Any taxing of legitimate religions could be grounds for a constitutional challenge of that tax law. Personally I think all specifically protected rights should not be taxed. Ie press, guns, religion, etc. (Yes I know that there has been no clear ruling on firearms, but its in the bill of rights). Its a sad case in this country when tax breaks is considered goverment support and welfare is considered a right. I am not putting words in your mouth, but stating positons I have heard from many people spouting such propaganda.
Consider the pharmacists who are refusing to sell contraceptives because it bothers their own morals. They got their pharmacy license as a business, from the government which supposedly represents all people. Along with the benefits they get comes the responsibility to serve all the people who gave them those benefits. Are they going to recompense those who they refuse to serve for moral reasons? No doubt there are others who would happily avenge the discrimination. What if someone else refuses to serve the pharmacist for the reason that they refused to dispense contraceptives? You can't have this kind of discrimination. There is no end to the ever-widening circle of revenge and revenge upon revenge.
You are a very short sited, well indoctrinated individual. A license. Oh I have a precious license to do business from the blessed government that can do no wrong. I must do all they say or I might lose my precious license to live. That is not a benefit, the ability to participate trade is a preexisting right. This governments morals might be fine, but what about the government who's majority of voters don't want you to sell to jews or blacks or other groups. In a free market, a tradesman who refuses to provide services will be replaced by one who will. The governmental oversite only slows down and complicates the issue. Most governmental licensure came about to protect influencial/rich members of society from honest competition. Please do us all a favor and study a little free market economics. It will free your mind from its self imposed slave state of mind.
You are wrong, the discrimination in the constitution has not been conscrued to include sexual orientation. Otherwise this would have been slam dunked long ago.
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you what wherever or whenever.
Actually, the 1st Amendment does give you the right to say whatever you want. It just doesn't protect you from private entities to use that against you.
Actually the 1st Amendment does not give you any rights, it protects your rights you already have.
Yes this is free speech. What the $@#! do you think free speech is? A PAC represents people and corporations that are organized by people. Their speech counts too. So who cares how much money is spent. Right now, people with money can hire attorneys and law specialists that can find loopholes in these obscure and confusing laws. These laws only affect people with limited resources. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. These laws are to allow incumbents to be reelected time after time. You are a fool who buys into what you are spoon fed. Think about how much you value your own rights before you try to abrogate those of others.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that you would be very surprised what kind of things there is room for at a University. There is plenty of pseudoscience going on in all manner of subject fields. Just look for the departments that have political or ideological litmus tests for its faculty and students and you will find it.
The conspiracy goes deeper than the GOP. The National Academy of Science is also involved - http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2.... How dare they criticize the science of these holy warriors? A pox upon both of their houses.
If you think the EPA is toothless, you are ignorant or living in a fantasy world. It is anything but toothless.
Obviously you have never dealt with the EPA. Much of the enforcement I have dealt with was arbitrary and capricious based on little more than opinion.
Don't forget Colonel Sanders - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face - he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly
Faith in the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is easy to have. People generally act in their own self interest, which is the same reason that blind faith in the government is nuts.
That's funny - I worked with a lady in 1999 that claimed to have 10 years of HTML experience on her resume. We figured she was writing code in hopes of a browser that would some day run it.
Hold it just a minute cowboy. Don't get caught up on wording that you don't understand. Courts consider cases. The case here is whether they should reinstate the law or not. So they will consider reinstating the ban, that is NOT a prejudicial phrase, it is common usage when talking about court cases. Your last statement is very odd, as they will hear the case and make a decision the affects it. Any decision will absolutely have something to do with the ban, either to affirm the stay or affirm the ban.
You said you're from Arizona, but you don't know the law very well. You cannot carry in restaurants or bars that serve alcohol that is served on the premisis. There is a bill being proposed that would change this, but for the time being no guns in bars and most sit down restaurants.
Why don't you use the whole quote. I hate when people use ellipsis to exclude important parts of a quote.
quote in full
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
You should read this http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.htm you've been had. Snopes has some bogus articles and you accepted it as fact.
Sorry, but please apply what has happened in Zimbabwe to your Africa model and see if it still holds true.
Sorry I can't trust anybody who spells losing as loosing.
The government taxes that dont benefit you are just as immoral as a bankrobber. Its tyranny by the majority.
Most open source software comes with a built-in tax break. No income, no income tax.
This is something that bothers me very much. People that think tax breaks are "tantamount to government support". As the Supreme Court ruled - "The ability to tax is the ability to destroy". If the gov taxed legitimate religions it would have the power to destroy them. This is contrary to the spirit of the 1st amendment. Any taxing of legitimate religions could be grounds for a constitutional challenge of that tax law. Personally I think all specifically protected rights should not be taxed. Ie press, guns, religion, etc. (Yes I know that there has been no clear ruling on firearms, but its in the bill of rights). Its a sad case in this country when tax breaks is considered goverment support and welfare is considered a right. I am not putting words in your mouth, but stating positons I have heard from many people spouting such propaganda.
It clearly says AC~ME not AC~DC i see no similarity at all :)
I think they use det-cord most of the time
I would have it try to conquer the Hooter's (restaurant?) in Las Cruces. Much closer to White Sands than Poughkeepsie.
Consider the pharmacists who are refusing to sell contraceptives because it bothers their own morals. They got their pharmacy license as a business, from the government which supposedly represents all people. Along with the benefits they get comes the responsibility to serve all the people who gave them those benefits. Are they going to recompense those who they refuse to serve for moral reasons? No doubt there are others who would happily avenge the discrimination. What if someone else refuses to serve the pharmacist for the reason that they refused to dispense contraceptives? You can't have this kind of discrimination. There is no end to the ever-widening circle of revenge and revenge upon revenge.
You are a very short sited, well indoctrinated individual. A license. Oh I have a precious license to do business from the blessed government that can do no wrong. I must do all they say or I might lose my precious license to live. That is not a benefit, the ability to participate trade is a preexisting right. This governments morals might be fine, but what about the government who's majority of voters don't want you to sell to jews or blacks or other groups. In a free market, a tradesman who refuses to provide services will be replaced by one who will. The governmental oversite only slows down and complicates the issue. Most governmental licensure came about to protect influencial/rich members of society from honest competition. Please do us all a favor and study a little free market economics. It will free your mind from its self imposed slave state of mind.
You are wrong, the discrimination in the constitution has not been conscrued to include sexual orientation. Otherwise this would have been slam dunked long ago.
The government can't FORCE you to enter into a private contract, no matter what.
Did you forget about Kelo?
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you what wherever or whenever.
Actually, the 1st Amendment does give you the right to say whatever you want. It just doesn't protect you from private entities to use that against you.
Actually the 1st Amendment does not give you any rights, it protects your rights you already have.
I hope that you are speaking sarcastically. The government is only interested in protecting itself from those pesky outsiders ie the electorate.
Yes this is free speech. What the $@#! do you think free speech is? A PAC represents people and corporations that are organized by people. Their speech counts too. So who cares how much money is spent. Right now, people with money can hire attorneys and law specialists that can find loopholes in these obscure and confusing laws. These laws only affect people with limited resources. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. These laws are to allow incumbents to be reelected time after time. You are a fool who buys into what you are spoon fed. Think about how much you value your own rights before you try to abrogate those of others.