Your reply is, "Ignore the broad effects, if they just do what we tell them, nothing will ever go wrong." Just like how the abstinence only in sex-ed people say, "ignore the broad effects, if they just do what we tell them, nothing will ever go wrong."
Too late. Already done and replaced with implants. IIRC, her response was along the lines of "I'll have the perkiest boobs in the nursing home in 40 years!"
Why do I get the feeling that the people rabidly coveting foreskins are also anti-vaccination?
I'm waiting for all the complaints about big dentistry "carving out" wisdom teeth for the money.
I'm sorry about your penis, but I think you would probably need more than that 1/4 inch added to feel good about yourself.
Perhaps you would like to thumb through my spam folder for a few minutes?
Aids. HPV. Chlamydia. gonorrhea. Yeast infections for their partners.
Aids is just a small part of it. Face it, that smegma factory is also an infection Disneyland.
There are plenty of women who do get prophylactic mastectomies when there is a strong history of breast cancer in their families. (christina applegate for one) How dare you call their health choice "mutilation"?
Where's the punishment? The research shows that there is no punishment. There's no loss of sensation -- in fact, men with adult circumcisions report that sex is BETTER afterwards. (RTFS). Its all upside and no real downside other than complications in the procedure itself, which are rare in infants.
Very very few people are really not sure. What this really means is that most people are voting "I'm not a republican but I'm voting Romney anyways and don't want to admit it."
That's why we don't pay them hardly anything and only let them meet once every other year in Texas.
Of course, that might also be why we recovered faster from the crash in Texas -- they weren't around to make things worse.
Being required to have a law enforcement escort while transiting a secured area is not arrest.
Yes. It is, by definition. If you weren't under arrest, you could move through it freely. The very word "arrest" means to stop or prevent. Under United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, you are under arrest anytime the police use force on you. Since he was escorted, they were using force. In addition, they were using force to prevent him from travelling to DC. Therefore, they were arresting him on the way to a session of the Senate. The end.
It's not a hard concept. The founders didn't pull this provision out of thin air because it sounded cool. It was to prevent something that had actually happened. The King in England would sometimes send his men to arrest MPs on their way to Parliament before a vote if they weren't voting his way. They would hold the MPs just long enough to keep them from voting, and then release them. This was intended to prevent that. Here, we clearly have the executive branch (the King's Men) holding a Senator (MP) on his way to the Senate (Parliament.) This one is not going to be hard for the SCOTUS to decide. The only thing that will be hard for them to explain is how there isn't a right to free travel rolled up into the airline industry.
If he was escorted out, then he was legally arrested. You don't have to have the magic words "you are under arrest" said or be booked. Whenever you are dealing with the authorities and you are not free to leave, you are arrested. (For example, every traffic stop resulting in a ticket is an arrest.)
Slashdot Mirror
Your reply is, "Ignore the broad effects, if they just do what we tell them, nothing will ever go wrong." Just like how the abstinence only in sex-ed people say, "ignore the broad effects, if they just do what we tell them, nothing will ever go wrong."
Too late. Already done and replaced with implants. IIRC, her response was along the lines of "I'll have the perkiest boobs in the nursing home in 40 years!"
No, it isn't obvious. Go ahead and highlight your anti-semitism for us.
Keep your crazy political ideas away from my religion AND my penis.
If you find a calloused dick, I guarantee you it was NOT circumcision that caused it.
Well that is a well reasoned argument. I will respond in kind: nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doodoo.
Isn't this the abstinence only argument again? If you're prefect, nothing will happen, so if it happens that means you deserved it?
Why do I get the feeling that the people rabidly coveting foreskins are also anti-vaccination? I'm waiting for all the complaints about big dentistry "carving out" wisdom teeth for the money.
If you could make is as non-intrusive as circumcision, I would be for it.
I'm sorry about your penis, but I think you would probably need more than that 1/4 inch added to feel good about yourself. Perhaps you would like to thumb through my spam folder for a few minutes?
Obviously, you don't need reasoning faculties, because you didn't get any.
Actually, the argument that the people who were smart enough to use the tool of circumcision won the evolutionary competitions pretty strong.
Aids. HPV. Chlamydia. gonorrhea. Yeast infections for their partners. Aids is just a small part of it. Face it, that smegma factory is also an infection Disneyland.
Isn't this the exact same argument as the abstinence only sex Ed crowd?
There are plenty of women who do get prophylactic mastectomies when there is a strong history of breast cancer in their families. (christina applegate for one) How dare you call their health choice "mutilation"?
Where's the punishment? The research shows that there is no punishment. There's no loss of sensation -- in fact, men with adult circumcisions report that sex is BETTER afterwards. (RTFS). Its all upside and no real downside other than complications in the procedure itself, which are rare in infants.
Very very few people are really not sure. What this really means is that most people are voting "I'm not a republican but I'm voting Romney anyways and don't want to admit it."
Never underestimate the power of a horde of loud old people yelling through your office door.
That's why we don't pay them hardly anything and only let them meet once every other year in Texas. Of course, that might also be why we recovered faster from the crash in Texas -- they weren't around to make things worse.
Did we say evil? We mean Don't Get Caught.
You are right about the application, but completely wrong about the terms, especially in the Constitutional sense.
Legally, there is no difference between arrest and detention.
Yes. It is, by definition. If you weren't under arrest, you could move through it freely. The very word "arrest" means to stop or prevent. Under United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, you are under arrest anytime the police use force on you. Since he was escorted, they were using force. In addition, they were using force to prevent him from travelling to DC. Therefore, they were arresting him on the way to a session of the Senate. The end.
It's not a hard concept. The founders didn't pull this provision out of thin air because it sounded cool. It was to prevent something that had actually happened. The King in England would sometimes send his men to arrest MPs on their way to Parliament before a vote if they weren't voting his way. They would hold the MPs just long enough to keep them from voting, and then release them. This was intended to prevent that. Here, we clearly have the executive branch (the King's Men) holding a Senator (MP) on his way to the Senate (Parliament.) This one is not going to be hard for the SCOTUS to decide. The only thing that will be hard for them to explain is how there isn't a right to free travel rolled up into the airline industry.
Guess who is on the Committee for Homeland Security.
If he was escorted out, then he was legally arrested. You don't have to have the magic words "you are under arrest" said or be booked. Whenever you are dealing with the authorities and you are not free to leave, you are arrested. (For example, every traffic stop resulting in a ticket is an arrest.)