The Japanese did actually land in Alaska, but my knowledge of the extent of that invasion is limited.
Your knowledge of American history is limited. Alaska is not part of the mainland, being separated from it my Canada, and at the time it was also not a state but a territory.
It was certainly very limited. However, I am not convinced the Second Amendment made much of a difference.
I won't use the (probably apocryphal) Yamamoto quote, but here's another from the Christian News:
In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other. Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. 'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.'
In closing, regardless of the veracity of the 2nd amendment, we also have the 10th. Congress has no right to infringe on OUR right to carry firearms without a Constitutional amendment.
With "free" health care, purchased on our dime, we will make that a reality. Unless, of course, that "health care" involves mandatory eugenics just like the progressives wanted back in the good ol' days of the early 20th century.
So much for the elitist progressive's idea that "sharing the wealth" will make everyone into affluent, successful little Prius-driving vegans, huh? The true class warfare involves the narcissistic socialists against the "poor and dumb".
I agree. If humans truly are just another animal, then it's no more unethical for humans to kill for food than for a tiger to do so. It's an argument that refutes itself.
We do need meat. You simply cannot get B-12 by eating plants. Technology allows us to extract the B-12 from animal products or even plants from which the B-12 is not normally accessible, but this is the very definition of unnatural.
But in places like the U.S., where grocery stores are abundant, then yes, meat is almost exclusively for pleasure and convenience.
Yup, you're a nutcase.
In case you hadn't noticed, doctors and nutritionists generally recommend a plant-based diet.
No they don't. A fully plant-based diet that is actually healthy is hard to achieve. It's a lot easier to eat meat in moderation.
So what is necessary about meat consumption?
To not die from B-12 deficiency.
It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience).
I assume you farm all your food, then? Because inconvenience is good?
I don't want a government check; and the "free" health care I do want will be paid for out of the taxes I pay gladly that now go to put Blackwater mercenaries ($1k/day) on the ground in diplomatically touchy situations instead of trained, accountable soldiers ($50-200/day) who are fighting for something more than the money and a chance to "empty an HK into a raghead".
This is called a "false dilemma". Nothing stops the government from spending billions shooting "ragheads" AND taxing the hell out of your to pay for compulsory health care.
If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?
Well, they did in the preceding five years. I'm sure if we used the same mysterious accountants the White House does, we could somehow calculate how many jobs the W tax cuts "saved or created" for you in the last 3 years as well-- but they're pretty well obscured by the economic collapse brought on by the housing bubble, bailouts, and devaluation of the dollar.
This is a fun joke for progressives to throw around, but I haven't been able to find a photo of a sign saying this that was placed in context at a "tea party" rally. In other words, it could have just been a meatspace troll from an outsider. Link?
The magical free market fairy so beloved by Republicans tells us that the cost of a product decreases as the consumer population/demand increases. Therefore, if all 300 million of us are buying the same product, shouldn't the cost of providing the product decrease?
No, not if all of us are forced, by law, to buy it. Want proof? See the car insurance rates in states that began to require it.
So... do you believe in the "free market fairy"-- in which case your argument is based on its existence-- or not, in which case your argument is invalid?
Which of course ignores the fact that the private sector loves to spend money on things like private jets and excessive salaries for CEO's etc,
Because we didn't all just pay for the President to take multiple jets, military equipment, and hundreds of personnel at the tune of millions of dollars per day over to India so he could... give a speech?
One problem we have is that the Democratic party keeps telling the public that the 50% that only pays 3% of the taxes is the upper half. It's hard to fight such a firmly entrenched lie.
The other problem is that, no, the public doesn't understand percentages because they were educated in the federally-controlled public school system.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Benjamin Franklin
The problem is, the only mandates I can think of that would actually reduce the cost of health care would be tort reform and forcing insurance companies to offer services in all 50 states. Unfortunately, neither of those is in the horror that the progressive Congress and progressive President passed.
This was uncharacteristic for Reagan, but he made this mistake in an attempt to address the Black Panther Party threat. I've read the act and it basically requires a carry permit (or "license"). To address his support for the Brady Bill, please keep in mind that this was in the 1980s when we simply didn't have the technology for an instant-check system. Now we do; yet, the left continues to push waiting periods. What are we waiting for? I don't have to wait more than a few minutes to download a movie over the internet: how can it take days to check someone's background? It doesn't, of course, and the progressives who realize we aren't easily bamboozled Luddites then invoke it as a "cooling down" period. Listen, it's the patient premeditated repeat killers that we need to stop-- not the rare headcase with a spotless record who goes mental because he got fired. Those characters can actually be stopped pretty well, ironically, by a well-armed populace.
I'd like to see someone rip off entire issues of Cooks Source and sell them on the web. We'll see how cavalier they are about copyright laws at that point.
Get the Ecosmart floods from Home Depot. These things come on at about 60% brightness (with a pinkish hue) and take at least a minute to make it to 100%. They suck, but I'm too cheap to put the incandescents back or get more expensive ones that will probably just warm up slightly quicker.
Google will show roads going over bridges that have been out for years. They'll even have street view for some of these, where you can see the white line passing right through the "ROAD CLOSED" barrier.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the phrase, "deficit-neutral".
Your knowledge of American history is limited. Alaska is not part of the mainland, being separated from it my Canada, and at the time it was also not a state but a territory.
I won't use the (probably apocryphal) Yamamoto quote, but here's another from the Christian News:
In closing, regardless of the veracity of the 2nd amendment, we also have the 10th. Congress has no right to infringe on OUR right to carry firearms without a Constitutional amendment.
Damn furries are on /.
With "free" health care, purchased on our dime, we will make that a reality. Unless, of course, that "health care" involves mandatory eugenics just like the progressives wanted back in the good ol' days of the early 20th century.
So much for the elitist progressive's idea that "sharing the wealth" will make everyone into affluent, successful little Prius-driving vegans, huh? The true class warfare involves the narcissistic socialists against the "poor and dumb".
I agree. If humans truly are just another animal, then it's no more unethical for humans to kill for food than for a tiger to do so. It's an argument that refutes itself.
We do need meat. You simply cannot get B-12 by eating plants. Technology allows us to extract the B-12 from animal products or even plants from which the B-12 is not normally accessible, but this is the very definition of unnatural.
But it is for those of us who aren't rich West-coast elitists who only shop at Whole Foods.
Yup, you're a nutcase. In case you hadn't noticed, doctors and nutritionists generally recommend a plant-based diet. No they don't. A fully plant-based diet that is actually healthy is hard to achieve. It's a lot easier to eat meat in moderation.
To not die from B-12 deficiency.
I assume you farm all your food, then? Because inconvenience is good?
Reductio ad absurdum doesn't really work here.
This is called a "false dilemma". Nothing stops the government from spending billions shooting "ragheads" AND taxing the hell out of your to pay for compulsory health care.
Well, they did in the preceding five years. I'm sure if we used the same mysterious accountants the White House does, we could somehow calculate how many jobs the W tax cuts "saved or created" for you in the last 3 years as well-- but they're pretty well obscured by the economic collapse brought on by the housing bubble, bailouts, and devaluation of the dollar.
What are you talking about? If you don't buy health care, you pay a penalty of up to 2% of your income. There isn't some sort of tax credit here.
This is a fun joke for progressives to throw around, but I haven't been able to find a photo of a sign saying this that was placed in context at a "tea party" rally. In other words, it could have just been a meatspace troll from an outsider. Link?
No, not if all of us are forced, by law, to buy it. Want proof? See the car insurance rates in states that began to require it.
So... do you believe in the "free market fairy"-- in which case your argument is based on its existence-- or not, in which case your argument is invalid?
Because we didn't all just pay for the President to take multiple jets, military equipment, and hundreds of personnel at the tune of millions of dollars per day over to India so he could... give a speech?
One problem we have is that the Democratic party keeps telling the public that the 50% that only pays 3% of the taxes is the upper half. It's hard to fight such a firmly entrenched lie.
The other problem is that, no, the public doesn't understand percentages because they were educated in the federally-controlled public school system.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Benjamin Franklin
The problem is, the only mandates I can think of that would actually reduce the cost of health care would be tort reform and forcing insurance companies to offer services in all 50 states. Unfortunately, neither of those is in the horror that the progressive Congress and progressive President passed.
This was uncharacteristic for Reagan, but he made this mistake in an attempt to address the Black Panther Party threat. I've read the act and it basically requires a carry permit (or "license"). To address his support for the Brady Bill, please keep in mind that this was in the 1980s when we simply didn't have the technology for an instant-check system. Now we do; yet, the left continues to push waiting periods. What are we waiting for? I don't have to wait more than a few minutes to download a movie over the internet: how can it take days to check someone's background? It doesn't, of course, and the progressives who realize we aren't easily bamboozled Luddites then invoke it as a "cooling down" period. Listen, it's the patient premeditated repeat killers that we need to stop-- not the rare headcase with a spotless record who goes mental because he got fired. Those characters can actually be stopped pretty well, ironically, by a well-armed populace.
I'd like to see someone rip off entire issues of Cooks Source and sell them on the web. We'll see how cavalier they are about copyright laws at that point.
Get the Ecosmart floods from Home Depot. These things come on at about 60% brightness (with a pinkish hue) and take at least a minute to make it to 100%. They suck, but I'm too cheap to put the incandescents back or get more expensive ones that will probably just warm up slightly quicker.
Despite the fact you're probably trolling, it's a little invention called the "room darkening blind".
Why? Is there any incorrect information in the article?
I suppose you complain about Christian Science Monitor articles, too. Who cares where they come from, as long as they are accurate?
Google will show roads going over bridges that have been out for years. They'll even have street view for some of these, where you can see the white line passing right through the "ROAD CLOSED" barrier.
And where are my mod points now!
And here I'd thought that it was wedding cake that took away a woman's libido. I guess it's really a permanent allergic reaction to the wedding dress!