yeah but this is a federal trial, not state, so he can be killed, and should be, if he isnt as i said before i can see riots in boston
Which will make the lot of them hypocrites - they declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1982.
If they're going to scream for the death penalty here, they really need to rethink their own "death penalty is unconstitutional" thing - maybe amend their own constitution to make it legal, for instance.
And why is this a federal trial, anyway? Two people set off a couple of bombs in one town, don't kill any federal agents, and so it's a federal matter??
Could this be used by lesbian couples in the future to have babies that are biological children of both parents?
No.
On the other hand, it might be a step in that direction, as well as in the more general direction of "any two people" can produce a child (as long as you're not too picky about your mitochondrial DNA)
A 50 Caliber bullet has up to 52 grams (800 grains) of gunpowder, which translates to 1.8 ounces. A more standard round, like say the 5.56/.223 round has 4 grams (62 grain), which translates to.14 ounces.
"Bullets" don't have gunpowder in them. They don't even have smokeless powder in them.
Cartridges, on the other hand, have bullets in them, as well as smokeless powder.
Note for the clueless - a "bullet" is the thing that goes out the barrel, not the thing you load into the chamber.
I wasnt saying no trial by any means. I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I am simply saying that there is no justification not to find him guilty and put him to death.
So, you KNOW FOR A FACT that he is guilty, eh?
Will you, as a favour to the rest of us, provide us the facts that you have personally verified that demonstrate his guilt?
Personally, I'll wait for the trial before I declare ANYONE guilty....
Actually, the simple solution would be to strike any law that gives benefit to actually be married. In other words, you treat all relationships the same as far as estate, tax and other benefits.
Some of those benefits of marriage were created by HIPAA. If we remove all benefits of marriage, then when your wife goes into the hospital, the doctor would be forbidden from discussing her condition with you (yeah, yeah, there are a lot of ways around that, but if you manage to overlook that particular issue a bit too long, you're basically screwed).
4 - Marriage becomes an institution of the Church, but at the same time as a "duly qualified" agent of the Church grants a Marriage, a Civil Union is granted as well.
>Why would we want to be handing out this privilege to the clergy?
Do keep in mind that today (and yesterday, for that matter), marriage requires a "marriage license" from your local government before it is legal - a ceremony in Church does absolutely NOTHING for your marital status without that piece of paper from the government.
Out of curiosity (I don't live in the US), what tax advantages do you get by being married?
Well, there's always "married filing jointly" for your standard deduction. Which is considerably larger than the "single" standard deduction.
However, note that the tax advantages were put into place back when few wives worked, and few of those that did earned as much as their husbands. With two wage-earners with comparable incomes, the tax advantages of "married filing jointly" evaporate rather quickly.
I've been a gun owner my whole life, but we really, really need to repeal the second amendment. We can't have people running around with nukes, and we can't infringe on people's right to bear arms unless we either A) amend the constitution or B) ignore the constitution.
Depends on your definition of "arms", I suppose.
If you pay attention to that "militia" clause in the front, it's pretty easy to conclude that "arms" means "weapons suitable to the militia (which includes all adult males in the USA, and should include all adult women, but amending the Militia Act that way would cause entirely too many people to have heart attacks).
"Weapons suitable to the militia" pretty much means "light infantry weapons" (we've got a Regular Army for the artillery/armour/heavy stuff), which pretty much ought to include any sort of rifle, pistol, or shotgun, whether selective fire or not.
machineguns are a bit more problematic, though they were still freely available to anyone who wanted to pay for one up until FDR decided that if he couldn't make them illegal, he'd tax them out of existence.
Read recently that the USA had reduced its carbon footprint by ~200 megatons over the last year or so
Alas, same article mentioned China had increased their carbon footprint by 300 megatons in the same timeframe.
With China and India trying to move into the 21st (or at least late 20th) century, there's not anything that can be done about AGW until you get BOTH of them on the bandwagon....
So spending 1 TRILLION+ on a war when we could have spent it on infrastructure and public safety is a good idea? I'm guessing you reap the benefits of government defense contracts.
Hmm, interesting that you draw that conclusion. But no, I'm not even working for a company that does government contracts anymore.
Note, by the by, that $1 trillion dollars (even if you do it in caps) isn't really all that much money, spread over ten years. Not if you're the US government anyway.
Try not to let yourself be fooled by the numbers, at least till you've compared them to the OTHER numbers. The "War on Terror" is a complete waste of time for a variety of reasons, but none of them are the tremendous casualties suffered as a result or the cost of same.
Note, by the by, that the best way to determine whether a "war on" is a good idea is to define the victory conditions. Once you know that, you can start working on the little details like "how do I achieve these victory conditions?"....
Then, and only then, are you in a position to say "okay, this is a good idea, let's do it"...or not.
Granted, taking Air Force One down there, and escorting the prisoners out one by one would be considered a strong statement...perhaps too strong for some tastes...but the option was always on the table.
Or not.
If you'd actually paid attention, closing Gitmo was on the Table for Obama right up till he discovered that the countries that the inmates were citizens of did NOT want them back, and in some cases would just shoot them if they showed up.
It would not have looked good to release these hypothetical terrorists back home to be shot, or into the USA where they'd (probably) be shot (by someone, not necessarily the Gov).
I've got a lot of issues with Obama breaking (campaign) promises, but that's one I don't have a problem with - there's no acceptable solution until/unless we can find a country to accept each and every one of the inmates (without the immediate execution part that some would get back home).
We lost about 3,000 people on 9-11, Since then we've lost about 3 times as many US military lives and 30 times as many permanently injured. A high price to pay for the US.
Hmm, 6000 or so American dead as a result of 9/11, including the soldiers who dies in the resulting wars. Plus 90000 permanently injured.
Since 9/11, we've also had about 420,000 traffic fatalities.
In other words, the deaths/injuries as a result of 9/11 were a minor blip compared to the deaths/injuries from driving to/from work every day in America.
The roman catholic church did terrible, horrible, inhumane things to people they considered heretics (torturing them until they confessed and then burning them to death to "save" them before they could recant) *while* thinking they were being good people.
If you're talking about the Spanish Inquisition, be aware that that was largely a product of the Spanish Monarchy, NOT the Catholic Church.
Note also that one of the main reasons for the Inquisition was to acquire money and land for the Spanish Monarchy....
Contract was to take a big check, and in exchange, run with the legal action all the way to the bitter end.
Now, the Bankruptcy Trustee might think there's some money to be made there (I think he's wrong, but no telling, really). But the lawyers aren't getting anything but screwed by this, having to face the Nazgul for FREE.....
Remember that the lawyers own what's left of SCO, they have nothing to lose.
and they want their payday.
SCO's lawyers have no payday incoming. They signed a contract years ago requiring them to take this case as far as the Supreme Court if necessary, for a flat fee (which looked like a more than big enough fee back then, not so much now) which they've long since spent.
he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
From the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
So, match up what he's done with the above definition of Treason, and explain it to those of us who are slow today...
They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.
Note that tech from the '70s does NOT imply continued improvement from, say 1990 to 2013, which would be covered by "20 years ago". I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!
In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.
As long as people still believe that they are so highly evolved they can do this without problem, it will continue to be one.
So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?
Slashdot Mirror
Which will make the lot of them hypocrites - they declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1982.
If they're going to scream for the death penalty here, they really need to rethink their own "death penalty is unconstitutional" thing - maybe amend their own constitution to make it legal, for instance.
And why is this a federal trial, anyway? Two people set off a couple of bombs in one town, don't kill any federal agents, and so it's a federal matter??
hmm, was an auto accident mentioned in the paper recently that killed five people, which is three more than the Boston bombs killed....
No.
On the other hand, it might be a step in that direction, as well as in the more general direction of "any two people" can produce a child (as long as you're not too picky about your mitochondrial DNA)
"Bullets" don't have gunpowder in them. They don't even have smokeless powder in them.
Cartridges, on the other hand, have bullets in them, as well as smokeless powder.
Note for the clueless - a "bullet" is the thing that goes out the barrel, not the thing you load into the chamber.
Until the trial, the "facts" that we know are:
1) someone set off some bombs in Boston.
2) someone thinks this idiot is the "someone" in (1) above.
So, you KNOW FOR A FACT that he is guilty, eh?
Will you, as a favour to the rest of us, provide us the facts that you have personally verified that demonstrate his guilt?
Personally, I'll wait for the trial before I declare ANYONE guilty....
firearms....
Some of those benefits of marriage were created by HIPAA. If we remove all benefits of marriage, then when your wife goes into the hospital, the doctor would be forbidden from discussing her condition with you (yeah, yeah, there are a lot of ways around that, but if you manage to overlook that particular issue a bit too long, you're basically screwed).
>Why would we want to be handing out this privilege to the clergy?
Do keep in mind that today (and yesterday, for that matter), marriage requires a "marriage license" from your local government before it is legal - a ceremony in Church does absolutely NOTHING for your marital status without that piece of paper from the government.
Hate to say this, "marriage" has always been a government issue. Even Martin Luther recognized that.
Well, there's always "married filing jointly" for your standard deduction. Which is considerably larger than the "single" standard deduction.
However, note that the tax advantages were put into place back when few wives worked, and few of those that did earned as much as their husbands. With two wage-earners with comparable incomes, the tax advantages of "married filing jointly" evaporate rather quickly.
Depends on your definition of "arms", I suppose.
If you pay attention to that "militia" clause in the front, it's pretty easy to conclude that "arms" means "weapons suitable to the militia (which includes all adult males in the USA, and should include all adult women, but amending the Militia Act that way would cause entirely too many people to have heart attacks).
"Weapons suitable to the militia" pretty much means "light infantry weapons" (we've got a Regular Army for the artillery/armour/heavy stuff), which pretty much ought to include any sort of rifle, pistol, or shotgun, whether selective fire or not.
machineguns are a bit more problematic, though they were still freely available to anyone who wanted to pay for one up until FDR decided that if he couldn't make them illegal, he'd tax them out of existence.
Just out of curiousity, how do you define "true equality"?
Read recently that the USA had reduced its carbon footprint by ~200 megatons over the last year or so
Alas, same article mentioned China had increased their carbon footprint by 300 megatons in the same timeframe.
With China and India trying to move into the 21st (or at least late 20th) century, there's not anything that can be done about AGW until you get BOTH of them on the bandwagon....
Hmm, interesting that you draw that conclusion. But no, I'm not even working for a company that does government contracts anymore.
Note, by the by, that $1 trillion dollars (even if you do it in caps) isn't really all that much money, spread over ten years. Not if you're the US government anyway.
Try not to let yourself be fooled by the numbers, at least till you've compared them to the OTHER numbers. The "War on Terror" is a complete waste of time for a variety of reasons, but none of them are the tremendous casualties suffered as a result or the cost of same.
Note, by the by, that the best way to determine whether a "war on" is a good idea is to define the victory conditions. Once you know that, you can start working on the little details like "how do I achieve these victory conditions?"....
Then, and only then, are you in a position to say "okay, this is a good idea, let's do it"...or not.
Or not.
If you'd actually paid attention, closing Gitmo was on the Table for Obama right up till he discovered that the countries that the inmates were citizens of did NOT want them back, and in some cases would just shoot them if they showed up.
It would not have looked good to release these hypothetical terrorists back home to be shot, or into the USA where they'd (probably) be shot (by someone, not necessarily the Gov).
I've got a lot of issues with Obama breaking (campaign) promises, but that's one I don't have a problem with - there's no acceptable solution until/unless we can find a country to accept each and every one of the inmates (without the immediate execution part that some would get back home).
Hmm, 6000 or so American dead as a result of 9/11, including the soldiers who dies in the resulting wars. Plus 90000 permanently injured.
Since 9/11, we've also had about 420,000 traffic fatalities.
In other words, the deaths/injuries as a result of 9/11 were a minor blip compared to the deaths/injuries from driving to/from work every day in America.
Your point was?
Jumping Bail? Don't think so.
If you're talking about the Spanish Inquisition, be aware that that was largely a product of the Spanish Monarchy, NOT the Catholic Church.
Note also that one of the main reasons for the Inquisition was to acquire money and land for the Spanish Monarchy....
No, they don't.
Contract was to take a big check, and in exchange, run with the legal action all the way to the bitter end.
Now, the Bankruptcy Trustee might think there's some money to be made there (I think he's wrong, but no telling, really). But the lawyers aren't getting anything but screwed by this, having to face the Nazgul for FREE.....
SCO's lawyers have no payday incoming. They signed a contract years ago requiring them to take this case as far as the Supreme Court if necessary, for a flat fee (which looked like a more than big enough fee back then, not so much now) which they've long since spent.
Because the NSA is NOT part of the Justice Department?
From the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
So, match up what he's done with the above definition of Treason, and explain it to those of us who are slow today...
/sighs
They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.
Note that tech from the '70s does NOT imply continued improvement from, say 1990 to 2013, which would be covered by "20 years ago". I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!
In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.
So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?