Well, he believes in the parts he likes. Not so much the Full Faith and Credit clause when it comes to gay marriages, for example, nor the 10th Amendment when it comes to so-called partial birth abortions.
Sorry, but a self-proclaimed strict constructionist who thinks "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to over turn the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution is a hypocritical asshole.
If he doesn't want the Constitution to apply to something, he should push for an amendment to change it, just like he tells everyone else to do.
The assault-abortion comparison is absurd, too. If a large number of states didn't feel it was worthy of a law, isn't that the very reason we have state's rights to begin with? To allow states to set their laws without interference from other states and the Federal government as much as is possible?
Again, "this particular issue is important enough to me that I feel the Constitution shouldn't apply" isn't something Paul gets to bash others for when he's doing it himself.
He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff".
My freedom is not helped by saying no to everything (well, everything except abortion bans and meddling in marriage definitions via DOMA, it would seem).
I say no to returning this part of the civilised world to the 1800s.
Didn't see the debunking of the global warming on Mars and the moons of the outer planets in our solar system occuring now too.
Oh, I don't know, maybe if you'd read the article you'd have found it?
RealClimate has also debunked that particular talking point.
"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states."
And there's nothing inherently evil about talking points.
It's when talking points are either flat out wrong or just drastically miss the point that problems arise, and that's what we see with most global warming denialist ones.
I'd imagine Google consider Gmail backups more important than Google Personalised Homepage backups. Getting a lost e-mail is hard, re-configuring our personal homepage takes a few minutes.
There's also the fact that you're probably as prone (or more so) to data loss as Google is.
Microsoft Office isn't content; your documents are.
Absolutely. Office's help files are content, though. Office apps are content containers, just like Gmail.
MSN (or whatever it's called these days) isn't content; your instant messages are.
Absolutely.
Windows isn't content; your data are.
Absolutely.
What's your definition of "content" then?
There are dictionary definitions for such things:
"Something contained, as in a receptacle. Often used in the plural: the contents of my desk drawer; the contents of an aerosol can." (Gmail and Office are like desk drawers or a pad of paper, as an analogy) "The material, including text and images, that constitutes a publication or document." "The substantive or meaningful part."
You've probably heard the phrase "content is king". Clearly, whoever said that didn't mean that an empty website is great and will attract visitors. No, the container - the website - needs actual content - good articles.
Unless you're signed up for some Google mailing lists, Gmail doesn't provide content, the people you're exchanging e-mail with are. Gmail's a host for other peoples' content, just like Google Search.
As far as not E-filing, it also costs the IRS more to process, so that at least helps to keep one more negative about the income tax on the board.
Huh? You do realise that in the governmental mind "costs more to process" translates to "collect more taxes to cover it", not "maybe we should abolish income tax", right?
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you consider rational economic policy to be an important factor. Returning to the bloody gold standard?
Well, he believes in the parts he likes. Not so much the Full Faith and Credit clause when it comes to gay marriages, for example, nor the 10th Amendment when it comes to so-called partial birth abortions.
I did.
I still fail to see how a Federal law banning a type of abortion promotes states' rights by any stretch of the imagination.
Sorry, but a self-proclaimed strict constructionist who thinks "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to over turn the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution is a hypocritical asshole.
If he doesn't want the Constitution to apply to something, he should push for an amendment to change it, just like he tells everyone else to do.
The assault-abortion comparison is absurd, too. If a large number of states didn't feel it was worthy of a law, isn't that the very reason we have state's rights to begin with? To allow states to set their laws without interference from other states and the Federal government as much as is possible?
Again, "this particular issue is important enough to me that I feel the Constitution shouldn't apply" isn't something Paul gets to bash others for when he's doing it himself.
Paul's not your guy, then.
He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff".
So that's why his name's on the list of yeas for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act and Marriage Protection Act?
He's a bloody hypocrite just like the rest. Fuck him.
My freedom is not helped by saying no to everything (well, everything except abortion bans and meddling in marriage definitions via DOMA, it would seem).
I say no to returning this part of the civilised world to the 1800s.
Yes, yes, yes. We get it. He says no to everything.
Not all of us find that appealing.
Didn't see the debunking of the global warming on Mars and the moons of the outer planets in our solar system occuring now too.
Oh, I don't know, maybe if you'd read the article you'd have found it?
RealClimate has also debunked that particular talking point.
"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states."
And there's nothing inherently evil about talking points.
It's when talking points are either flat out wrong or just drastically miss the point that problems arise, and that's what we see with most global warming denialist ones.
Bad idea. Gun collectors would end up with a fist that weighs an additional four pounds from all the RFID chips.
Right, because linking multiple guns to one RFID chip is impossible!
Take a screenshot.
If you lose your personalised homepage, add the widgets in the screenshot back in.
I'd imagine Google consider Gmail backups more important than Google Personalised Homepage backups. Getting a lost e-mail is hard, re-configuring our personal homepage takes a few minutes.
There's also the fact that you're probably as prone (or more so) to data loss as Google is.
"Apple Remote Desktop (ARD) is a Macintosh application produced by Apple Inc., first released on 14 March 2002, that replaced a similar product called Apple Network Assistant. Aimed at computer administrators responsible for large numbers of computers and teachers who need to assist individuals or perform group demonstrations, Apple Remote Desktop allows users to remotely control or monitor other computers over a network."
HTML can be included, just as with the rest.
An empty HTML shell of a website isn't content, either. It's when you put useful stuff in it that you've got content.
Please point out where I said that.
I'm merely pointing out that his actions had more consequences for him than a mere slap on the wrist.
Under what definition is an application content?
Microsoft Office isn't content; your documents are.
Absolutely. Office's help files are content, though. Office apps are content containers, just like Gmail.
MSN (or whatever it's called these days) isn't content; your instant messages are.
Absolutely.
Windows isn't content; your data are.
Absolutely.
What's your definition of "content" then?
There are dictionary definitions for such things:
"Something contained, as in a receptacle. Often used in the plural: the contents of my desk drawer; the contents of an aerosol can." (Gmail and Office are like desk drawers or a pad of paper, as an analogy)
"The material, including text and images, that constitutes a publication or document."
"The substantive or meaningful part."
You've probably heard the phrase "content is king". Clearly, whoever said that didn't mean that an empty website is great and will attract visitors. No, the container - the website - needs actual content - good articles.
Absolutely, yes.
Unless you're signed up for some Google mailing lists, Gmail doesn't provide content, the people you're exchanging e-mail with are. Gmail's a host for other peoples' content, just like Google Search.
It's great, but it's not content.
I don't think the cop got more than slap on the wrist for what happened
You mean beyond the critical injuries you say he received?
When debating various forms of taxation, efficiency is a factor in determining appropriateness, fairness, and desirability.
I suspect "I refuse to take already existing measures to improve efficiency just to bolster my side" doesn't win you debate points.
If it makes you feel any better, just assume some of Bush's tax cuts were a result of increased e-filing.
It'll never get toppled. They'll just make efficiency measures, like requiring you to e-file.
As far as not E-filing, it also costs the IRS more to process, so that at least helps to keep one more negative about the income tax on the board.
Huh? You do realise that in the governmental mind "costs more to process" translates to "collect more taxes to cover it", not "maybe we should abolish income tax", right?