Even more so: to save the ACA, Republicans can simply do nothing (and they are). To save DACA, they must by means of legislation affirmatively extend it or make it permanent. Not happening.
It seems like the "peers," instead of testing the new theoretical proof, are instead simply looking for errors in it because they refuse to believe that someone has solved it when they could not.
You don't "test" math proofs. They are either true, or they are not. If they have errors, then you got good ol' TPATWTCIF.
The original sentence flows more smoothly without any commas at all while still being unambiguous in structure. This is one of those cases where less punctuation is more. (Disclaimer: I, too, tend to overuse commas, as my brain thinks, incorrectly, that the mental pause it elicits conveys gravitas.)
I have a deep, intense fear that I will fail to miss out on the news. This fear is usually validated by the weekly shitstorm on my FB feed. Also, when/. posts "current events" articles.
You need to remember the biblical admonition against throwing pearls before swine. GP knows exactly WTF this guy did, and is being a parrot. Your effort is wasted on him.
Diplomatic relations are based on reciprocity. Germany would be well within their rights to reciprocate by halting intelligence-sharing activities with the US. If a specifically appropriate reciprocal response is unavailable (for instance, if there were no intelligence-sharing to halt), a well-honored tradition in diplomatic relations is to expel diplomats (as Russia did recently in response to US sanctions). Reciprocity is what makes bilateral relations work.
The problem here is that there IS no possible (internationally legal and acceptable) reciprocal response to physical harm. There must be a response, but it cannot be in any way close to what the Cubans did here. Since physical security of diplomats is paramount in diplomatic law, there is no *actual* diplomatic relationship here, anymore.
It's no secret that most people do not donate to political cause they believe in, much less ones they don't. And given that FEC donation information is the best (possibly only) indicator we have of political affiliation, you need to show that a 90% skew in favor of democrats in all donations is somehow statistically insignificant.
In almost every branch of the federal government, employees who donate to democrats outnumber those who donate to republicans more than 10-1. This is no less true of the State Dept. Defense Dept employees (that covers the NSA) gave 84%, and DHS gave 75% of their contributions to democrats, so they aren't quite as liberal, as a whole, as the State Dept. The only exception is the US Postal Service, where the numbers are almost (but not quite) in parity.
Fact: Civil servants (including intelligence services) aren't just liberal; they're liberal enough to put their money on it.
[source: Federal Election Commission report from 2016 election. You can search it at fec.gov, or find report breakdowns at many outlets.]
It's not a stretch. Our intelligence services are staffed by life-long civil servants (who are predominantly liberal), and journalists are overwhelmingly liberal, also. After the JournoList revelation, there is no doubt in my mind that the press was an extension of Obama's executive branch.
Slashdot Mirror
These supply shortfalls are related to increased labor and environmental regulation by leftists.
This is China. What labor and environmental regulations are you babbling about?
I would rather they spent their working days naming post offices, but that's just me.
Even more so: to save the ACA, Republicans can simply do nothing (and they are). To save DACA, they must by means of legislation affirmatively extend it or make it permanent. Not happening.
I didn't know I needed that video in my life, but I did. It's redneck zen.
It seems like the "peers," instead of testing the new theoretical proof, are instead simply looking for errors in it because they refuse to believe that someone has solved it when they could not.
You don't "test" math proofs. They are either true, or they are not. If they have errors, then you got good ol' TPATWTCIF.
The original sentence flows more smoothly without any commas at all while still being unambiguous in structure. This is one of those cases where less punctuation is more. (Disclaimer: I, too, tend to overuse commas, as my brain thinks, incorrectly, that the mental pause it elicits conveys gravitas.)
They can't control you if you don't listen.
I have a deep, intense fear that I will fail to miss out on the news. This fear is usually validated by the weekly shitstorm on my FB feed. Also, when /. posts "current events" articles.
You're forgiven and forgotten SecuROM pretty quickly.
I assure you, I back up all the seconds!
...because everyone has a backup of the backup, right? It's supposed to be backups, all the way down...
Uh, so, I need to get this cake, see...
You need to remember the biblical admonition against throwing pearls before swine. GP knows exactly WTF this guy did, and is being a parrot. Your effort is wasted on him.
I'm sorry.
"Stop trying to make 'fetch' happen, Gretchen. It's not going to happen!"
Diplomatic relations are based on reciprocity. Germany would be well within their rights to reciprocate by halting intelligence-sharing activities with the US. If a specifically appropriate reciprocal response is unavailable (for instance, if there were no intelligence-sharing to halt), a well-honored tradition in diplomatic relations is to expel diplomats (as Russia did recently in response to US sanctions). Reciprocity is what makes bilateral relations work.
The problem here is that there IS no possible (internationally legal and acceptable) reciprocal response to physical harm. There must be a response, but it cannot be in any way close to what the Cubans did here. Since physical security of diplomats is paramount in diplomatic law, there is no *actual* diplomatic relationship here, anymore.
Immunity and protection are the precepts of diplomatic law. Without them there are no diplomatic relations. Time to take our ball and go home.
I got the joke, even if no one else did. Also, that damn jingle is in my head, now; thanks.
This post isn't called 'what phone should I buy?'
No one cares what phone you have.
Quoth the GP:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=political...
You can ignore the Breitbart link, if you like. Seriously, what search terms were you using????
Here, I'll pick one out of the list for you: http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...
That wasn't hard.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=political...
And to be clear, we're talking out tens of millions of dollars. So, not "a handful."
It's no secret that most people do not donate to political cause they believe in, much less ones they don't. And given that FEC donation information is the best (possibly only) indicator we have of political affiliation, you need to show that a 90% skew in favor of democrats in all donations is somehow statistically insignificant.
See my post above responding to AC. You are incorrect.
In almost every branch of the federal government, employees who donate to democrats outnumber those who donate to republicans more than 10-1. This is no less true of the State Dept. Defense Dept employees (that covers the NSA) gave 84%, and DHS gave 75% of their contributions to democrats, so they aren't quite as liberal, as a whole, as the State Dept. The only exception is the US Postal Service, where the numbers are almost (but not quite) in parity.
Fact: Civil servants (including intelligence services) aren't just liberal; they're liberal enough to put their money on it.
[source: Federal Election Commission report from 2016 election. You can search it at fec.gov, or find report breakdowns at many outlets.]
It's not a stretch. Our intelligence services are staffed by life-long civil servants (who are predominantly liberal), and journalists are overwhelmingly liberal, also. After the JournoList revelation, there is no doubt in my mind that the press was an extension of Obama's executive branch.