Twitter is who pays for the servers, the connections, the code, the support staff, etc. They can choose to not let whoever they want post, as long as it's not because they belong to a protected class.
Which "Race" is protected? And, why only the one you name?
"Protected class" doesn't refer to any one race. It refers to categories which cannot be used as a basis for discrimination. Race is one of those categories.
IF ALL of them are protected then the "protection" is meaningless.
Huh? It means your race (or whichever class you are looking at) cannot be used as a basis to refuse service, be it African American, Caucasian, Pacific Islander, etc. That's pretty fucking meaningful in my book.
What's weird about it is that, while the studies of cannabis smoke itself - like the one in your link - show that it should have serious negative health effects, studies on the health of users find no such effects. This suggests that either there is something in cannabis that counteracts such negative effects, or that the way or amount in which it is consumed is different enough to mitigate them.
Except every municipal broadband attempt has been challenged and in most places they've been declared illegal.
This isn't exactly accurate. While there have been challenges, they have been through the political system, not through the courts. When they have failed, it's either been because a city council decided not to go forward in the face of political pressure, or because the state has passed laws preemting local governments. But it is not true to say municipal broadband has been declared illegal in most places.
I would assume because the people running majority black schools care about their daughters and want them to have access to health care services, birth control, and medical information to help them make good choices about their reproduction? It's right there in the name - PLANNED Parenthood. People who have kids when they're ready to do better than those who don't, and their kids have better outcomes than those who don't.
The real question is why are so many conservatives bound and determined to undermine these efforts?
And yet, none of Hillary's crimes have ever had a conviction, and none of the people associated with her have ever been convicted.
Do you really think this point supports your argument?
Trump associates are being targeted.
Yes, that's how it goes: prosecutors target people who break the law.
Notice how they're going after 5-10 year old tax law violations, stuff that would normally be a fine and as slap on the wrist for first convictions.
Interesting that you leave out charges like conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and bank fraud. Also interesting that you think tax law violations are minor issues not worth pursuing.
Do you really think that if they had anything on Trump, they'd be sitting on it?
Given that the a) the investigation is ongoing, b) Robert Mueller is known for being as by-the-book as they come, and c) the current justice department policy is that you can't indict a sitting president, I don't know why you would think that they *wouldn't* be sitting on it.
If you really believe this stuff, you are more of a credulous simp than a wizkid.
The point is to make it clear enough to the voting population that Trump is a thoroughly corrupt crook who should be voted out in 2020, and make it clear that the GOP is filled with people who can't be counted on to check the blatant excesses of this administration, and therefore should be voted out in 2018.
It might not make much sense to you, but to anyone who has studied formal logic, it's obvious that he's pointing out the fact that your post is a loaded question fallacy.
The classic example is, "When did you stop beating your wife?" That question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that you did in fact regularly beating your wife, much like your question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that California doesn't verify the eligibility of voters to vote.
How will they use the data when they find that 95% of traffic on a given road segment exceeds the speed limit? Will they use it for revenue enhancement? Or will they use it to implement the 85% rule?
Where I live, the GOP very actively opposes any effort to allocate new funds for road construction or maintenance - particularly if that contruction or maintenance is planned for urban areas. They have gone so far as to shoot down laws that would allow local jurisdictions to raise taxes to fund such projects.
So it may be your experience that Republicans don't oppose the government building roads, but that experience is not universal.
There is exactly one country on the face of the earth with the word "America" in it (there is more than one "United States" - look it up). When someone refers to a country by the name, you should be able to figure out which one it is.
Sure, there's a possibility of collusion. But you've got it backwards - if there's collusion, it's going to be between the assessor and the assessed. Any kickback is going to come from someone who gets a lower tax bill than they otherwise would. Who is going to pay a kickback for a higher-than-accurate assessment? Certainly not the assessed - they come out on the short end. Certainly not the assessor's boss - there's no incentive for someone to endanger their job and their freedom to do so.
Which is exactly why we have so many non-denominational churches preaching the Prosperity Gospel. You know how you can get a bible that uses red print for anytime Jesus says anything, to highlight his actual teachings? They took the same concept, but instead of red, set the text to match the background. Makes it much easier to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you point to a Trump policy that fostered that growth?
No, he cannot, because Trump has done nothing of the sort.
That's what it looks like here, too. At least to those of us who haven't shut off our brains.
Twitter is who pays for the servers, the connections, the code, the support staff, etc. They can choose to not let whoever they want post, as long as it's not because they belong to a protected class.
Race is a protected class. Gullibility is not.
Which "Race" is protected? And, why only the one you name?
"Protected class" doesn't refer to any one race. It refers to categories which cannot be used as a basis for discrimination. Race is one of those categories.
IF ALL of them are protected then the "protection" is meaningless.
Huh? It means your race (or whichever class you are looking at) cannot be used as a basis to refuse service, be it African American, Caucasian, Pacific Islander, etc. That's pretty fucking meaningful in my book.
... the level of THC in the blood and the degree of impairment do not appear to be closely related.
There's a difference between being high and having cannabis metabolites in your system. The former lasts 3-5 hours. The latter lasts days or weeks.
Yet somehow it is not actually linked with increased risk of cancer.
This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema.
That's not what the research indicates.
What's weird about it is that, while the studies of cannabis smoke itself - like the one in your link - show that it should have serious negative health effects, studies on the health of users find no such effects. This suggests that either there is something in cannabis that counteracts such negative effects, or that the way or amount in which it is consumed is different enough to mitigate them.
Except every municipal broadband attempt has been challenged and in most places they've been declared illegal.
This isn't exactly accurate. While there have been challenges, they have been through the political system, not through the courts. When they have failed, it's either been because a city council decided not to go forward in the face of political pressure, or because the state has passed laws preemting local governments. But it is not true to say municipal broadband has been declared illegal in most places.
I would assume because the people running majority black schools care about their daughters and want them to have access to health care services, birth control, and medical information to help them make good choices about their reproduction? It's right there in the name - PLANNED Parenthood. People who have kids when they're ready to do better than those who don't, and their kids have better outcomes than those who don't.
The real question is why are so many conservatives bound and determined to undermine these efforts?
Ah, so you're a genocide denier then, illogically narrowing the definition of a person based on the completely arbitrary line of birth.
*the point of viability, ie when the fetus can survive without the mother. Not that arbitrary, actually.
If you get banned from every restaurant in town, you need to admit that you have a problem.
Pretty sure that was the message some certain southerners wanted a certain other group to learn.
Race is a protected class. Gullibility is not.
And yet, none of Hillary's crimes have ever had a conviction, and none of the people associated with her have ever been convicted.
Do you really think this point supports your argument?
Trump associates are being targeted.
Yes, that's how it goes: prosecutors target people who break the law.
Notice how they're going after 5-10 year old tax law violations, stuff that would normally be a fine and as slap on the wrist for first convictions.
Interesting that you leave out charges like conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and bank fraud. Also interesting that you think tax law violations are minor issues not worth pursuing.
Do you really think that if they had anything on Trump, they'd be sitting on it?
Given that the a) the investigation is ongoing, b) Robert Mueller is known for being as by-the-book as they come, and c) the current justice department policy is that you can't indict a sitting president, I don't know why you would think that they *wouldn't* be sitting on it.
If you really believe this stuff, you are more of a credulous simp than a wizkid.
The point is to make it clear enough to the voting population that Trump is a thoroughly corrupt crook who should be voted out in 2020, and make it clear that the GOP is filled with people who can't be counted on to check the blatant excesses of this administration, and therefore should be voted out in 2018.
It might not make much sense to you, but to anyone who has studied formal logic, it's obvious that he's pointing out the fact that your post is a loaded question fallacy.
The classic example is, "When did you stop beating your wife?" That question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that you did in fact regularly beating your wife, much like your question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that California doesn't verify the eligibility of voters to vote.
How will they use the data when they find that 95% of traffic on a given road segment exceeds the speed limit? Will they use it for revenue enhancement? Or will they use it to implement the 85% rule?
Where I live, the GOP very actively opposes any effort to allocate new funds for road construction or maintenance - particularly if that contruction or maintenance is planned for urban areas. They have gone so far as to shoot down laws that would allow local jurisdictions to raise taxes to fund such projects.
So it may be your experience that Republicans don't oppose the government building roads, but that experience is not universal.
"Downtown" Scottsdale? Scottsdale has a downtown?
There is exactly one country on the face of the earth with the word "America" in it (there is more than one "United States" - look it up). When someone refers to a country by the name, you should be able to figure out which one it is.
No, since the cost is so small and the benefit is so large, it should be seen as a worthwhile venture.
Sure, there's a possibility of collusion. But you've got it backwards - if there's collusion, it's going to be between the assessor and the assessed. Any kickback is going to come from someone who gets a lower tax bill than they otherwise would. Who is going to pay a kickback for a higher-than-accurate assessment? Certainly not the assessed - they come out on the short end. Certainly not the assessor's boss - there's no incentive for someone to endanger their job and their freedom to do so.
You might want to compare real estate values in Chicago with those in Silicon Valley. There's a smidge of a difference.
Which is exactly why we have so many non-denominational churches preaching the Prosperity Gospel. You know how you can get a bible that uses red print for anytime Jesus says anything, to highlight his actual teachings? They took the same concept, but instead of red, set the text to match the background. Makes it much easier to avoid cognitive dissonance.
The problem is the conservatives are operating on bad science and bad economics ...
Or, at the very least, in bad faith.