You, if you're the same AC as before, used the word, "minerals" to describe the supposed special chemical makeup of lemons. It's not my problem that minerals happen to be minerals. It's yours.
Except for the similarities in age, I'd say every single damn headache you encounter in elementary school, middle school, and high school except maybe having a colleague mess their pants will occur.
And a lot of those headaches happen precisely because my coworkers happen to be products of public schools. There is this subtle difference between learning how to deal with dysfunctional human behavior and encouraging dysfunctional human behavior.
Personally, I think home schooling is a bad thing for kids since it doesn't teach them the proper socialization they will need as adults.
Compared to what? Public schools don't either. The rest of your life isn't going to be spent with a cohort of people who just happen to be mostly within a year of age of each other in a prison scenario with nothing more important to do than create bizarre microtribes and hierarchies.
Because the experts are not saying it. They leave it to the professional spokespeople to say it.
These experts are the professional spokespeople. There's one president while there are thousands of experts who also just so happen to be professional spokespeople. Even if it really were the president's job to speak for his advisors (spoiler: it is not), he isn't physically possible for speaking for all of them.
Second, this is a blatantly obvious bit of propaganda. Cherrypick the dumbest things said by your political opposite and cheaply look presidential by disagreeing with it. Seriously. how hard is it to watch the news for something dumb, then say something not as dumb, and then get pet reporters to publish it?
And the fact is that lemon juice is extremely acidic. I don't see any point to your post since there is nothing unusual about minerals in lemon juice. There's minerals in almost everything including most drinking water.
The people recommending these measles vaccines have accidently offed an alternative explanation for 99% of the effect.
And as I noted, even if that were true, it's still not good enough because you need to explain 99.9% of the effect, due to the more than three orders of magnitude reduction in measles cases.
Is this really what you think "blinded RCT" means?
What would the point of a more rigorous regime of testing, if it's not on the actual use case, children being immunized against measles? The advocate for "blinded RCT" is already ignoring a great of rigorous testing of measles vaccines. And they are already ignoring substantial evidence like more than three orders of magnitude reduction. I think it likely that they would ignore a slightly more rigorous testing (assuming generously that "blinded RCT" hasn't already been done on primates) of the vaccine on primates because primates aren't human children. And then where are you?
You are confised. Obama is not (and never claimed to be) a public health expert. But He would claim to be a spokesperson for his advisors who are certified public health experts.
So why not quote these certified public health experts instead of just another politician?
Maybe if you're a 1%er who has rigged the economy to screw over the middle class, you can post like you're not a foaming at the mouth idiot, but for the rest of us, it's practically impossible.
The quotes posted above show that this can plausibly account for up to 99% reduction in diagnosed measles cases.
That's not good enough. You need to explain three orders of magnitude reduction in measles cases not two. Introduction of the measles vaccine explains the actual reduction of cases seen.
a blinded RCT is missing
In other words, let's deliberately infect a lot of unimmunized children with measles just so we can get another significant digit on our knowledge of how effective the measles vaccine is.
We ran through this argument before (caution this thread is infinitely deep, it just keeps going and going). The only difference is that now your collection of imaginary reasons why the vaccine doesn't work now stretches to cover two orders of magnitude rather than one order of magnitude. It however needs to cover more than three orders of magnitude.
So why do you (and the NRA) insist on leaving out that first clause?
What do you mean by "leaving it out"? I'm just pointing out that it is irrelevant to law except as giving insight into the minds of the people who made it part of the Constitution.
You want to fight off an army - get an army and A BUNCH OF ALLIES.
That stuff grows on trees, amirite?
The problem with this is that you need to build that army and obtain those allies. For the case of the US, there were already a lot of people who both had served in a military before and who had easy access to firearms. That was the basis of the eventual US army. And the US obtained allies in large part because they had success on the battlefield. While it may have been possible to obtain that in the absence of prevalent ownership of firearms, I strongly doubt the US would exist now, if firearm ownership wasn't so widespread in the first case.
It's also worth noting that there are several decisive battles that were fought mostly with privately owned firearms, such as the Battles of Saratoga (which prevented the British from breaking up the northern US) and the Battle of King's Mountain (which was the first in a series of defeats that eventually crippled the British presence in the southern US and drove the British to eventual, final defeat at the siege of Yorktown).
So sure, a bunch of guys with guns isn't going to do much against an army (unless they're really numerous), but an army with weapons and a basic level of competence is going to fare better than one without that.
Where is it indicated that every citizen is "responsible" for upholding the Constitution?
I see it as a practical matter. Like any human institution, the Supreme Court can be gamed by destroying it, subverting it, or copying it. At that point, the only practical opposition comes from the public, should they want to keep a democracy.
Nope. You can file a court challenge if you want, but that's all the 'leeway' a US citizen gets in going against something that has been ruled on point by SCOTUS.
Legally. Illegally, there's still quite a number of options, including a fair number of non-violent ones (since we have people here who appear to be concerned about gun violence).
I'm confused. You said it isn't hard to stack SCOTUS with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description, then you link to an effort to do that which failed.
But it didn't fail because it was illegal, it failed merely because FDR didn't get enough votes. This remains a ready path for someone who already controls two branches of government to control the last.
As I noted. the first part of the Second Amendment doesn't actually do anything. It's merely the authors' of the Second Amendment's justification for the second half. And I disagree with the AC replier to your post. There is no nuance here.
How can you love the second half of the 2nd Amendment but completely ignore the first half?
What is there to pay attention to in the first half of the Second Amendment? It's just a justification for the second part with no valid legal ramification. It's just like claims that the preamble to the Constitution has legal basis.
The Deep State couldn't care less about your guns, as was proven for the nth time when none of the Clive Bundy fanboys who pointed guns at federal agents faced arrest, much less a federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary.
Do you have a reason for your opinion? "Facing arrest" sounds an awful lot like several dozen federal agents coming up as casualties just in the attempt and generating nasty guerrilla warfare problems for the "deep state" over the entire US.
You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution.
Given that every US citizen is responsible for upholding the US Constitution, that implies legally leeway in interpreting it as well.
The judiciary is, and SCOTUS is the final authority on the matter. You probably don't want to go around making absolute statements about what is and is not constitutional unless you have a current SCOTUS opinion to back you up, because you start to look crazy.
And what happens when the Supreme Court makes unconstitutional decisions? This is not a hypothetical situation. It's not that hard a thing to stack with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description and that has been attempted.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not quite the same.
Hint: Knowledge and freedom don't generally put your wife 6 feet under when your 3-year-old gets hold of one of them and figures out how to disengage the safety.
But I bet I can find a few other forms of power that could do the same thing. Just because a form of power is dangerous for a three year old, or even for anyone, doesn't make it not power. And once you have power, you have something that a government would want to control.
Slashdot Mirror
And you happen to be a person ignoring actual evidence. That makes you the pseudoscientist in this morality play.
You, if you're the same AC as before, used the word, "minerals" to describe the supposed special chemical makeup of lemons. It's not my problem that minerals happen to be minerals. It's yours.
Have you worked at a corporation?
Yes.
Except for the similarities in age, I'd say every single damn headache you encounter in elementary school, middle school, and high school except maybe having a colleague mess their pants will occur.
And a lot of those headaches happen precisely because my coworkers happen to be products of public schools. There is this subtle difference between learning how to deal with dysfunctional human behavior and encouraging dysfunctional human behavior.
Personally, I think home schooling is a bad thing for kids since it doesn't teach them the proper socialization they will need as adults.
Compared to what? Public schools don't either. The rest of your life isn't going to be spent with a cohort of people who just happen to be mostly within a year of age of each other in a prison scenario with nothing more important to do than create bizarre microtribes and hierarchies.
Because the experts are not saying it. They leave it to the professional spokespeople to say it.
These experts are the professional spokespeople. There's one president while there are thousands of experts who also just so happen to be professional spokespeople. Even if it really were the president's job to speak for his advisors (spoiler: it is not), he isn't physically possible for speaking for all of them.
Second, this is a blatantly obvious bit of propaganda. Cherrypick the dumbest things said by your political opposite and cheaply look presidential by disagreeing with it. Seriously. how hard is it to watch the news for something dumb, then say something not as dumb, and then get pet reporters to publish it?
Facts disagree with you.
And the fact is that lemon juice is extremely acidic. I don't see any point to your post since there is nothing unusual about minerals in lemon juice. There's minerals in almost everything including most drinking water.
The people recommending these measles vaccines have accidently offed an alternative explanation for 99% of the effect.
And as I noted, even if that were true, it's still not good enough because you need to explain 99.9% of the effect, due to the more than three orders of magnitude reduction in measles cases.
Is this really what you think "blinded RCT" means?
What would the point of a more rigorous regime of testing, if it's not on the actual use case, children being immunized against measles? The advocate for "blinded RCT" is already ignoring a great of rigorous testing of measles vaccines. And they are already ignoring substantial evidence like more than three orders of magnitude reduction. I think it likely that they would ignore a slightly more rigorous testing (assuming generously that "blinded RCT" hasn't already been done on primates) of the vaccine on primates because primates aren't human children. And then where are you?
You are confised. Obama is not (and never claimed to be) a public health expert. But He would claim to be a spokesperson for his advisors who are certified public health experts.
So why not quote these certified public health experts instead of just another politician?
You're putting out there a statement that says that any parent who doesn't vaccinate is not responsible.
Not responsible != less responsible.
Maybe if you're a 1%er who has rigged the economy to screw over the middle class, you can post like you're not a foaming at the mouth idiot, but for the rest of us, it's practically impossible.
FIFY.
Water would be far more "alkalizing" than lemon juice.
The quotes posted above show that this can plausibly account for up to 99% reduction in diagnosed measles cases.
That's not good enough. You need to explain three orders of magnitude reduction in measles cases not two. Introduction of the measles vaccine explains the actual reduction of cases seen.
a blinded RCT is missing
In other words, let's deliberately infect a lot of unimmunized children with measles just so we can get another significant digit on our knowledge of how effective the measles vaccine is.
We ran through this argument before (caution this thread is infinitely deep, it just keeps going and going). The only difference is that now your collection of imaginary reasons why the vaccine doesn't work now stretches to cover two orders of magnitude rather than one order of magnitude. It however needs to cover more than three orders of magnitude.
Then I suggest the TEC-9. It'll be awesome for your YouTube video.
I also understand that human nature being what it is, you'll always have sheep on the sidelines who will always be passive no matter what the threat.
Yep. Responsibility doesn't imply action.
So why do you (and the NRA) insist on leaving out that first clause?
What do you mean by "leaving it out"? I'm just pointing out that it is irrelevant to law except as giving insight into the minds of the people who made it part of the Constitution.
You want to fight off an army - get an army and A BUNCH OF ALLIES.
That stuff grows on trees, amirite?
The problem with this is that you need to build that army and obtain those allies. For the case of the US, there were already a lot of people who both had served in a military before and who had easy access to firearms. That was the basis of the eventual US army. And the US obtained allies in large part because they had success on the battlefield. While it may have been possible to obtain that in the absence of prevalent ownership of firearms, I strongly doubt the US would exist now, if firearm ownership wasn't so widespread in the first case.
It's also worth noting that there are several decisive battles that were fought mostly with privately owned firearms, such as the Battles of Saratoga (which prevented the British from breaking up the northern US) and the Battle of King's Mountain (which was the first in a series of defeats that eventually crippled the British presence in the southern US and drove the British to eventual, final defeat at the siege of Yorktown).
So sure, a bunch of guys with guns isn't going to do much against an army (unless they're really numerous), but an army with weapons and a basic level of competence is going to fare better than one without that.
Where is it indicated that every citizen is "responsible" for upholding the Constitution?
I see it as a practical matter. Like any human institution, the Supreme Court can be gamed by destroying it, subverting it, or copying it. At that point, the only practical opposition comes from the public, should they want to keep a democracy.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The English language hasn't changed enough to for your interpretation to have been valid way back when.
Nope. You can file a court challenge if you want, but that's all the 'leeway' a US citizen gets in going against something that has been ruled on point by SCOTUS.
Legally. Illegally, there's still quite a number of options, including a fair number of non-violent ones (since we have people here who appear to be concerned about gun violence).
I'm confused. You said it isn't hard to stack SCOTUS with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description, then you link to an effort to do that which failed.
But it didn't fail because it was illegal, it failed merely because FDR didn't get enough votes. This remains a ready path for someone who already controls two branches of government to control the last.
As I noted. the first part of the Second Amendment doesn't actually do anything. It's merely the authors' of the Second Amendment's justification for the second half. And I disagree with the AC replier to your post. There is no nuance here.
I guess we'll just have to continue with widespread firearm ownership and use then, since you can't think of any better way to do that.
How can you love the second half of the 2nd Amendment but completely ignore the first half?
What is there to pay attention to in the first half of the Second Amendment? It's just a justification for the second part with no valid legal ramification. It's just like claims that the preamble to the Constitution has legal basis.
The Deep State couldn't care less about your guns, as was proven for the nth time when none of the Clive Bundy fanboys who pointed guns at federal agents faced arrest, much less a federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary.
Do you have a reason for your opinion? "Facing arrest" sounds an awful lot like several dozen federal agents coming up as casualties just in the attempt and generating nasty guerrilla warfare problems for the "deep state" over the entire US.
You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution.
Given that every US citizen is responsible for upholding the US Constitution, that implies legally leeway in interpreting it as well.
The judiciary is, and SCOTUS is the final authority on the matter. You probably don't want to go around making absolute statements about what is and is not constitutional unless you have a current SCOTUS opinion to back you up, because you start to look crazy.
And what happens when the Supreme Court makes unconstitutional decisions? This is not a hypothetical situation. It's not that hard a thing to stack with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description and that has been attempted.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not quite the same.
Hint: Knowledge and freedom don't generally put your wife 6 feet under when your 3-year-old gets hold of one of them and figures out how to disengage the safety.
But I bet I can find a few other forms of power that could do the same thing. Just because a form of power is dangerous for a three year old, or even for anyone, doesn't make it not power. And once you have power, you have something that a government would want to control.