Dude, this is Slashdot. You see articles every three months about a new law restricting movies and video games. And of course, they have some of the most oppressive firearm laws.
They specify 21 and make it clear elsewhere that it doesn't matter if the driver came from a state where this "graduated license" nonsense did not exist or the driver got his license much earlier and thus had more than three years experience already.
I'm not confused because I have actually read about what people said and did then. If the forming of our government had been predicated on abolition, it simply would never have happened. Basically, the judge of the Virginia colony who somehow decided John Casor was the slave of Anthony Johnson (another black man) is responsible to hundreds of years of hardship, pain, and death.
Actually, NJ is one of the more oppressive states IRT drivers' licenses. For one, you have to be 16 to even get a permit. Second, you have to have it for six months AND be at least 17 before you can even take the test. Third, your observer while you're under permit can't just be a legal adult: they have to be 21 (age discrimination) and have been a licensed driver for at least three years (understandable). Fourth, even once you have a PROBATIONARY license, which you must have for a YEAR before you get a real one, you CAN'T have anyone except family in the car EVEN IF YOU ARE AN 18 YEAR OLD LEGAL ADULT (age discrimination again)-- don't know what the environmental lobby thinks of this obvious detriment to carpooling. Fifth, the state is fond of using the license as a carrot for everything; in other words, there are about 90 different things a young person could screw up with that could delay getting their license: drinking under 21, a miscellaneous juvenile incident, mouthed off to a cop, etc.
And people wonder why I moved to Pennsylvania 17 years ago.
This is only confusing for people who still believe "liberal" and "conservative" mean what FDR called them, and that the more important political axis concerns social issues rather than the power of the state.
Couldn't you just as easily show this as bias toward the "left" by MSNBC and CNN? Especially since MSNBC's headline also contains "Historic win for gay marriage" and doesn't refer to the Constitution at all?
By the way, I just checked FoxNews.com and what you say is no longer correct. The headline is up there. So what you're claiming is that if a website doesn't respond super-quickly and in the manner that you demand, they're biased?
Ideally, that's what would happen. But we all know that the states selectively decide this: drivers' licenses are accepted, but firearm permits usually are not. This is especially amusing when you consider that politicians constantly remind us that driving is a privilege, while it's understood by most that keeping and bearing arms is a right (though what this means is subject to whim^H^H^H^H interpretation).
The first half of Kennedy's statement is wholly pointless; it's not the federal government's job to decide what is or isn't disrespectful to the people. That attitude is what gets us into problems like this in the first place. The second half is the part that matters: the federal government has no business arbitrarily telling States what laws they may enact unless said laws remove the rights of the people: life, liberty, and property.
Because the states haven't already addressed this problem by not taxing food, clothing, medicine, and rent. By the way, the federal government is now taxing drugs and medical equipment-- apparently to make health care cheaper.
I would be 100% cooler with "progressives" if they would learn logic instead of using ad homs, appeals to emotion, and red herrings to shut down debate. It's like some stupid drama that was on 10 years ago-- Boston Public, maybe-- where some fictional speaker that was a mix of Rush Limbaugh and a Grand Wizard was coming to the school to speak. A moderate member of the faculty pointed out that people need to be allowed to speak so others can make their own decisions, while another member claimed that people with such opinions as this "KKK Rush" ipso facto had no right-- highly ironic.
Did you just arrive here from 1860? If so, you would know that the Underground Railroad ran to Canada due to the Fugitive Slave Act, and it became rather obsolete in 1865.
That's a chart of economic freedom. It's clear how it differs from one based on personal freedom, based on the fact that Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia rank among the highest.
No, Actually, they're not facts. And would you please offer evidence that I'm a "feudalist"? You're clearly an unabashed socialist; why be insulted by the mere reference?
Keep using ad homs against your opponents; that way, you'll never be faced with putting their allegations to the test and possibly changing your own opinions.
Jesus is a lamb and they want to live in eternity in heaven as lambs.
You probably think you're clever, but you pretty much come off as an unfunny ignoramus. He is the lamb because he was sacrificed-- a reference to the Passover feast. Jesus used the analogy of himself as the Good Shepherd, but that doesn't make us lambs.
Life is more fulfilling if you aren't the guy who is trying to fire off snide AC comments all the time instead of joining a rational discussion.
So I guess that we were supposed to nicely ask the Taliban to give up Bin Laden and stop harboring Al Qaeda? The Taliban were the government in the region harboring Al Qaeda. We did the best we could, by soliciting the assistance of the Northern Alliance. We couldn't exactly use diplomacy to execute a "police action" and bring Bin Laden in for a trial. In case you didn't notice, Afghanistan was run by warlords. Your continued argument is nonsense.
Uh, what? By what measurement? Most Americans don't produce anything.
You have to admit: this is an utter nonsense statement. Unless you're referring to all the people who voluntarily don't work, or work little, and collect checks FROM the IRS every year. Those folks are net consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, this is Slashdot. You see articles every three months about a new law restricting movies and video games. And of course, they have some of the most oppressive firearm laws.
They specify 21 and make it clear elsewhere that it doesn't matter if the driver came from a state where this "graduated license" nonsense did not exist or the driver got his license much earlier and thus had more than three years experience already.
While it seems impossible to have a basic license before 21 in NJ, it's possible in other states and thus, the age designation is discriminatory.
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." - Yogi Berra
I'm not confused because I have actually read about what people said and did then. If the forming of our government had been predicated on abolition, it simply would never have happened. Basically, the judge of the Virginia colony who somehow decided John Casor was the slave of Anthony Johnson (another black man) is responsible to hundreds of years of hardship, pain, and death.
Do some research on the Enlightenment, then read the 10th amendment.
Actually, NJ is one of the more oppressive states IRT drivers' licenses. For one, you have to be 16 to even get a permit. Second, you have to have it for six months AND be at least 17 before you can even take the test. Third, your observer while you're under permit can't just be a legal adult: they have to be 21 (age discrimination) and have been a licensed driver for at least three years (understandable). Fourth, even once you have a PROBATIONARY license, which you must have for a YEAR before you get a real one, you CAN'T have anyone except family in the car EVEN IF YOU ARE AN 18 YEAR OLD LEGAL ADULT (age discrimination again)-- don't know what the environmental lobby thinks of this obvious detriment to carpooling. Fifth, the state is fond of using the license as a carrot for everything; in other words, there are about 90 different things a young person could screw up with that could delay getting their license: drinking under 21, a miscellaneous juvenile incident, mouthed off to a cop, etc.
And people wonder why I moved to Pennsylvania 17 years ago.
This is only confusing for people who still believe "liberal" and "conservative" mean what FDR called them, and that the more important political axis concerns social issues rather than the power of the state.
Couldn't you just as easily show this as bias toward the "left" by MSNBC and CNN? Especially since MSNBC's headline also contains "Historic win for gay marriage" and doesn't refer to the Constitution at all?
By the way, I just checked FoxNews.com and what you say is no longer correct. The headline is up there. So what you're claiming is that if a website doesn't respond super-quickly and in the manner that you demand, they're biased?
Your logic needs a little work.
Ideally, that's what would happen. But we all know that the states selectively decide this: drivers' licenses are accepted, but firearm permits usually are not. This is especially amusing when you consider that politicians constantly remind us that driving is a privilege, while it's understood by most that keeping and bearing arms is a right (though what this means is subject to whim^H^H^H^H interpretation).
The first half of Kennedy's statement is wholly pointless; it's not the federal government's job to decide what is or isn't disrespectful to the people. That attitude is what gets us into problems like this in the first place. The second half is the part that matters: the federal government has no business arbitrarily telling States what laws they may enact unless said laws remove the rights of the people: life, liberty, and property.
I'll let you in on a little secret: Progressives are against progress.
Because the states haven't already addressed this problem by not taxing food, clothing, medicine, and rent. By the way, the federal government is now taxing drugs and medical equipment-- apparently to make health care cheaper.
I would be 100% cooler with "progressives" if they would learn logic instead of using ad homs, appeals to emotion, and red herrings to shut down debate. It's like some stupid drama that was on 10 years ago-- Boston Public, maybe-- where some fictional speaker that was a mix of Rush Limbaugh and a Grand Wizard was coming to the school to speak. A moderate member of the faculty pointed out that people need to be allowed to speak so others can make their own decisions, while another member claimed that people with such opinions as this "KKK Rush" ipso facto had no right-- highly ironic.
I'd rather keep my eyes averted from Stallman. He might eat his foot-skin again.
Did you just arrive here from 1860? If so, you would know that the Underground Railroad ran to Canada due to the Fugitive Slave Act, and it became rather obsolete in 1865.
That's a chart of economic freedom. It's clear how it differs from one based on personal freedom, based on the fact that Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia rank among the highest.
Some frees are free-er than others?
No, Actually, they're not facts. And would you please offer evidence that I'm a "feudalist"? You're clearly an unabashed socialist; why be insulted by the mere reference?
Keep using ad homs against your opponents; that way, you'll never be faced with putting their allegations to the test and possibly changing your own opinions.
It would be nice if internet socialists didn't offer totally blind support for every misbegotten union.
Even if there were, you just couldn't reprint the recipe-- in a cookbook, for example. If you know the recipe, nothing can stop you from using it.
You probably think you're clever, but you pretty much come off as an unfunny ignoramus. He is the lamb because he was sacrificed-- a reference to the Passover feast. Jesus used the analogy of himself as the Good Shepherd, but that doesn't make us lambs.
Life is more fulfilling if you aren't the guy who is trying to fire off snide AC comments all the time instead of joining a rational discussion.
So I guess that we were supposed to nicely ask the Taliban to give up Bin Laden and stop harboring Al Qaeda? The Taliban were the government in the region harboring Al Qaeda. We did the best we could, by soliciting the assistance of the Northern Alliance. We couldn't exactly use diplomacy to execute a "police action" and bring Bin Laden in for a trial. In case you didn't notice, Afghanistan was run by warlords. Your continued argument is nonsense.
You have to admit: this is an utter nonsense statement. Unless you're referring to all the people who voluntarily don't work, or work little, and collect checks FROM the IRS every year. Those folks are net consumers.