Yes, I believe you nailed exactly what Al would have said to us. That is why back in 2000 we chose George Bush's idiot son to be our leader over Al. And he whined about it all the way to the Supreme court, which is something that the Democrats now tell us isn't very "Presidential".
You moron. It's not vaccines because we don't want it to be vaccines. I must be something else that, as we said, we don't understand yet. You better quit endangering big pharma's profits with your damn logic, or you'll be dealt with like those nurses were.
Yea. Those anti-vaxers are just idiots. And to prove it we have a special tax on every vaccine that goes into a special fund for everyone that does get harmed by vaccines. And we even have a special court that does nothing but deal with people harmed by vaccines, and that determines in an indisputable way just what your child's life was worth, no dealing with the normal court system here. Yes, we have the perfect alliance of the courts and big pharma to put those anti-vaxers in their place.
Sounds good to me. I'll gladly live without Spotify if it means PayPal is down too. You might want to add Slashdot to that list too, I've had a lot of timeouts in just the last few minutes on Slashdot, but other sites I check seem to be fine.
Maybe it is because people who pay $700 for their phone and then see someone else who got a phone for under $100 are damn well determined to justify their choice. Even if it has an Intel chip in it rather than a Qualcomm chip.
So what if he is just a private citizen and doesn't even have access to (supposedly) secure government servers. It's a damn good sound byte to say that Trump is also using insecure servers, and when you're up against facts that's all this poor victimized woman has. How dare you try to take that away from you. You must be a Russian agent or a rapist and groper. You're on the enemies list now and one thing you don't want is to be on Hillery's enemies list.
When a Galaxy Note 7 caught fire in China, its owner started filming the damage. That's to be expected.
My thoughts too. If you really believe that your phone is safe and you are not planning for this, why and how do you have another video recording device handy? Of course, the could be a legitimate answer to this, but it also could be that this was a complete set-up and the second camera was so handy because the phone destruction was planned. Maybe the bribe just wasn't in the range that this film maker expected.
I really doubt if the majority of Uber drivers will be able to catch drives close to where they discharged their last passenger and will not go after another rush hour fare. But it really doesn't matter, the logic still holds. Even if they make short trips to pick up all of their fares, An Uber driver still represents more miles and time spent in traffic than the miles and time if their fares all drove themselves. So taking Uber increases traffic and traffic delays, it does not reduce them as Uber wants to claim.
If you drive to work and park your car there, then drive home that evening, your car only has to drive to and from work. If you call Uber for a pickup. someone (or something) drives a vehicle to you and then takes you to where you want to go. It then drives to the next pick-up, which during morning rush hour is more likely than not another commute from the suburbs into the city. At the end of the day the car with no paying customer makes another trip "home". Overall it isn't hard to see that the more Uber cars there are on the road replacing private cars, the more total miles will be driven and the worse traffic will be.
You might say to you could reduce the total miles driven with Uber if rides were shared, although that would add inconvenience and lengthen the trip for most people. But you can ride-pool already if you are so inclined, so there seems to be no good reason to use Uber if the goal is to reduce traffic and time wasted in traffic.
Parent posted the truth. Must be modded down Immediately. And all paid "Correct the Record" trolls should viciously attack him and submit a link to the flame to "Barrier Breakers" for payment.
Actually it was all over the news 4 years ago, including the local left leaning TV stations. I was asked for a link, this was the first that Google found. It is the same information, just not the original source.
Yea, but the Supreme Court struck down the Republican heavy gerrymandering. Interestingly, I know many Democrats who say "We had them gerrymandered in our favor even worse when we were in power".
Of course it isn't that simple. It has nothing to do with valid ID at all. It has to do with wanting to vote under many different names and getting all of the illegals to vote. That damn ID requirement makes that more difficult (but not much more). If IDs are so hard to get why the hell are not the Democrats defending the rights of the people and fighting against the requirement to show ID at airports too?
Remember all those illegals that had criminal records that were going to be deported but somehow they accidentally were made citizens recently? What might a reasonable person conclude about that?
Well, it's not like the Governor of Virginia recently restored voting rights to 10,000 convicted felons who are now expected to vote for Democrats. It is more like 13,000.
Here you are (Google is your friend). This is four years old but nothing has changed except the voters are getting older. The local news says it continues this year.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
That's a complete lie. While they do move driver's licenses offices (I spent an afternoon trying to track one down about 10 years ago when the one that I used to go to wasn't there any more), the number seems to be increasing and well distributed. And there are provisions to get a free ID if you don't drive (if you do drive then there is no reason that you can't get to a license office). They have actually made things easier, since you can renew a registration over the Internet now, which you couldn't do before. So there is clearly no intent to keep legitimate people from voting or getting an ID. Checking for ID seems a perfectly valid thing. If I have to show an ID to fly (as in freedom of travel) then I should certainly have to show one to vote. It is only Democrats that thrive on voter fraud (and we have plenty of it here) that opposed this.
Let us remember, Bernie won the primary by 51% total in all of the states that have a paper trail, and lost overwhelmingly in the rest of the states that do not have a paper trail. Isn't that interesting, I wonder what it means.
They passed a law in my state to require ID when voting. The Democrats challenged it and the Supreme Court (with all of its new appointees) ruled in their favor, so no ID check at our polls either.
You miss the obvious advantage that so many more people will have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote this way. Why here in North Carolina we have people as old as 160 who still vote by absent-tee ballot (mostly Democrats), which I doubt they would be able to do if they had to appear at the poles. I'm sure there would be no problem, like selling of uncompleted ballots to a political party, since our parties are so scrupulously honest.
Slashdot Mirror
So what this is saying is that Hillary brings out stronger, more negative feelings of disgust in others than Trump, right?
Yes, I believe you nailed exactly what Al would have said to us. That is why back in 2000 we chose George Bush's idiot son to be our leader over Al. And he whined about it all the way to the Supreme court, which is something that the Democrats now tell us isn't very "Presidential".
You moron. It's not vaccines because we don't want it to be vaccines. I must be something else that, as we said, we don't understand yet. You better quit endangering big pharma's profits with your damn logic, or you'll be dealt with like those nurses were.
Yea. Those anti-vaxers are just idiots. And to prove it we have a special tax on every vaccine that goes into a special fund for everyone that does get harmed by vaccines. And we even have a special court that does nothing but deal with people harmed by vaccines, and that determines in an indisputable way just what your child's life was worth, no dealing with the normal court system here. Yes, we have the perfect alliance of the courts and big pharma to put those anti-vaxers in their place.
Sounds good to me. I'll gladly live without Spotify if it means PayPal is down too. You might want to add Slashdot to that list too, I've had a lot of timeouts in just the last few minutes on Slashdot, but other sites I check seem to be fine.
Maybe it is because people who pay $700 for their phone and then see someone else who got a phone for under $100 are damn well determined to justify their choice. Even if it has an Intel chip in it rather than a Qualcomm chip.
Another “Barrier Breakers” employee heard from.
So what if he is just a private citizen and doesn't even have access to (supposedly) secure government servers. It's a damn good sound byte to say that Trump is also using insecure servers, and when you're up against facts that's all this poor victimized woman has. How dare you try to take that away from you. You must be a Russian agent or a rapist and groper. You're on the enemies list now and one thing you don't want is to be on Hillery's enemies list.
When a Galaxy Note 7 caught fire in China, its owner started filming the damage. That's to be expected .
My thoughts too. If you really believe that your phone is safe and you are not planning for this, why and how do you have another video recording device handy? Of course, the could be a legitimate answer to this, but it also could be that this was a complete set-up and the second camera was so handy because the phone destruction was planned. Maybe the bribe just wasn't in the range that this film maker expected.
I really doubt if the majority of Uber drivers will be able to catch drives close to where they discharged their last passenger and will not go after another rush hour fare. But it really doesn't matter, the logic still holds. Even if they make short trips to pick up all of their fares, An Uber driver still represents more miles and time spent in traffic than the miles and time if their fares all drove themselves. So taking Uber increases traffic and traffic delays, it does not reduce them as Uber wants to claim.
If you drive to work and park your car there, then drive home that evening, your car only has to drive to and from work. If you call Uber for a pickup. someone (or something) drives a vehicle to you and then takes you to where you want to go. It then drives to the next pick-up, which during morning rush hour is more likely than not another commute from the suburbs into the city. At the end of the day the car with no paying customer makes another trip "home". Overall it isn't hard to see that the more Uber cars there are on the road replacing private cars, the more total miles will be driven and the worse traffic will be.
You might say to you could reduce the total miles driven with Uber if rides were shared, although that would add inconvenience and lengthen the trip for most people. But you can ride-pool already if you are so inclined, so there seems to be no good reason to use Uber if the goal is to reduce traffic and time wasted in traffic.
The airlines are NOT requiring it. Our government, through the TSA is.
Parent posted the truth. Must be modded down Immediately. And all paid "Correct the Record" trolls should viciously attack him and submit a link to the flame to "Barrier Breakers" for payment.
Actually it was all over the news 4 years ago, including the local left leaning TV stations. I was asked for a link, this was the first that Google found. It is the same information, just not the original source.
..... don't harm the interests of consumers
That's pretty much a deal breaker.
Yea, but the Supreme Court struck down the Republican heavy gerrymandering. Interestingly, I know many Democrats who say "We had them gerrymandered in our favor even worse when we were in power".
Of course it isn't that simple. It has nothing to do with valid ID at all. It has to do with wanting to vote under many different names and getting all of the illegals to vote. That damn ID requirement makes that more difficult (but not much more). If IDs are so hard to get why the hell are not the Democrats defending the rights of the people and fighting against the requirement to show ID at airports too?
Remember all those illegals that had criminal records that were going to be deported but somehow they accidentally were made citizens recently? What might a reasonable person conclude about that?
Well, it's not like the Governor of Virginia recently restored voting rights to 10,000 convicted felons who are now expected to vote for Democrats. It is more like 13,000.
Here you are (Google is your friend). This is four years old but nothing has changed except the voters are getting older. The local news says it continues this year. http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
That's a complete lie. While they do move driver's licenses offices (I spent an afternoon trying to track one down about 10 years ago when the one that I used to go to wasn't there any more), the number seems to be increasing and well distributed. And there are provisions to get a free ID if you don't drive (if you do drive then there is no reason that you can't get to a license office). They have actually made things easier, since you can renew a registration over the Internet now, which you couldn't do before. So there is clearly no intent to keep legitimate people from voting or getting an ID. Checking for ID seems a perfectly valid thing. If I have to show an ID to fly (as in freedom of travel) then I should certainly have to show one to vote. It is only Democrats that thrive on voter fraud (and we have plenty of it here) that opposed this.
Yea, I sure was thinking "Prior Art" as I read the snippet. We sure have an interesting patent office if they "missed" that.
If you can't trust Yahoo then, oh never mind.
Let us remember, Bernie won the primary by 51% total in all of the states that have a paper trail, and lost overwhelmingly in the rest of the states that do not have a paper trail. Isn't that interesting, I wonder what it means.
How would you suggest the lack of a paper trail that voting machines enable be addressed?
If only there were some way to vote on paper ballots and not by an unaccountable machine.
They passed a law in my state to require ID when voting. The Democrats challenged it and the Supreme Court (with all of its new appointees) ruled in their favor, so no ID check at our polls either.
You miss the obvious advantage that so many more people will have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote this way. Why here in North Carolina we have people as old as 160 who still vote by absent-tee ballot (mostly Democrats), which I doubt they would be able to do if they had to appear at the poles. I'm sure there would be no problem, like selling of uncompleted ballots to a political party, since our parties are so scrupulously honest.