I, for one, do not believe that the New Testament speaks only Christ's words and teachings, especially considering that considerable portions were written hundreds of years after his death.
This is patently false. We've even found MS of the synoptic gospels and some of Paul's letters in the first century to prove it.
Also consider that the Church picked and chose which books to include in the New Testament.
Also false. The first Council of Nicea chose which books were canon based on circulation and whether they formed a consensus with the other writings. Internal contradictions and questionable events or imagery that was not consistent with the majority of the available texts resulted in exclusion.
This isn't even considering that Jesus, like Luther centuries later, wasn't necessarily seeking to create a new religion, rather he was attempting to modify the existing Hebrew religion.
Again, false. Please refer to Jesus's conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, or John 3:16, or Paul's writings about the gentiles.
It was extended before 1958, so unfortunately any corporate-owned works published after 1924 will still be in copyright for a few more decades. If it's owned by Edison's estate, then it would be in copyright until 2021 (death+90).
People have suggested (and even implemented) those measures before. They don't work, and I could probably adapt the "spam control form" to these "ideas", but I'll be more polite. They don't work because they all assume that criminals will follow the law, that most violent crime is committed in the heat of the moment rather than premeditated (and that criminals are impatient and will suddenly turn into schoolboys when faced with a week wait), and that gun shows are a prime vector for guns used in crime. All false.
And I'd rather read funny trolls than ignorant rehashing of the progressive agenda... but I don't want to outlaw ignorant speech because I believe in the first amendment.
Can the moms in MADD really be so stupid as to repeat the same mistake?
YUP! See:.08 "intoxication" limit now in most states.
Anyway..... I'm curious how these events would be different without a gun for self-defense. In both cases I suspect the end result would be two dead victims. Is that really want anti-gun people want.
Anti-gunners want us to believe that it's more common for previously law-abiding citizens who carry guns to commit murder, than defend themselves and others from violent crime.
I'm still hoping Barney Frank could somehow be removed from office for his lies concerning the stability of Fannie and Freddie; they will be delisted this week. He opposed improving oversight back in 2003 and 2005, then when something was done (too late) in 2008, he blamed the response on Bush-- who had recommended better oversight back in 9/11/2003. I'm looking at the article in the NYT RIGHT NOW. "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae". He was, and is, on the financial services committee. If he couldn't see it, he's either crooked or incompetent. Boxer? Fiorina is a rather flawed candidate, but she still has a great chance against that conceited, incompetent, hypocritical buffoon.
Rasmussen isn't a pollster. It's an arm of the Republican party bent on shaping public opinion via horribly, horribly skewed polls in a race of interest
Poisoning the well fallacy, AC. Just because you don't like the organization (or man) doesn't mean they're invalid. If Rasmussen polls were garbage, they wouldn't be used much because, frankly, some people depend on the numbers.
Early polls aren't verifiable, but over time Rasmussen will adjust their polls to be increasingly in-line with legitimate pollsters so their overall ratings are alright.
[citation needed]
That Rasmussen (or Raspublican as it's often called) only dares to give Angle a lead of 11 points means she's toast and they know it.
Or, they're a legitimate organization with accurate numbers. If they were Republican-controlled, wouldn't they want to give her a slightly bigger lead?
James Madison specifically (even sarcastically) cited a public education system as a potential result of abuse of the "general welfare" clause, so I content that opposing the byzantine and wasteful Department of Education is, in fact, quite reasonable. The report that she wants to outlaw alcohol is false. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the point of her controversial statement was, but Prohibition was a progressive fiasco and I highly doubt that this TEA Party-supported candidate would call for its return. I'm chalking it up to be a stumbling block that even good candidates have: one dumb campaign issue. After all, evoking memories of the organized crime explosion and widespread civil disobedience during Prohibition in defense of the continued ban of marijuana has the exactly the opposite desired effect.
wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water
I'm pretty sure she never made such a stupidly worded statement. Why do you have to make up a straw man? She's simply stated she's against it, and there's scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is bad for one's overall health. Is it really that difficult for people to brush their teeth in the 21st century USA?
Is also the nutter who thinks overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States via a violent revolution is a good idea.
Indeed. Maybe we should drop all pretense, and require a 3/5 vote to pass anything. BTW, let's not bring partisanship into this: the Democrats have no qualms about using filibusters when they're in the minority position.
Why should States have more say than their citizens?
Straw man. States have the least power they have ever had. We're only talking about returning one they used to have-- that doesn't constitute "more say". As for the "why", well, we've been told by the progressives since birth (for anyone who went to public school) that "democracy" is best. The founders knew this was RUBBISH, as they had researched historical democracies and knew why they failed. We have democracy in the form of popular vote, but the indirect elements of a republic protect the interest of groups of people in their States. If you don't like how things are run in your state, at the least you can vote with your feet.
Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today).
Only because the Supreme Court has declared it so. They decided that the federal government could tell you how to grow food, even if it wasn't going to leave your state or EVEN YOUR HOME, because it COULD leave.
Anybody who's ever run a mainframe database knows that's just stupid. Back in 1997 Altavista found six people with my exact full name on the internet. In 1997!
I think most families could see something closer to $10 a month. I've been aware of the "vampire" power problem for years, and before I had a Kill-a-Watt I handled it by noting any "bricks" that remained warm even when their devices were off. But this would be news to most people. There are other opportunities as well, such as the digital cable box that uses almost as much power when off as on (thanks, Motorola)!
OK, well now you know one: me. To your anecdotal evidence, I add mine. As a relatively new home owner, I visit a lot of DIY forums and I assure you, people everywhere are looking for ways to save on energy costs in this economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Then when you're no longer of use to the state, they can put you into their eco-friendly crematorium!
I love amateur atheists who use Google searches as the basis for their arguments, don't you?
This is patently false. We've even found MS of the synoptic gospels and some of Paul's letters in the first century to prove it.
Also false. The first Council of Nicea chose which books were canon based on circulation and whether they formed a consensus with the other writings. Internal contradictions and questionable events or imagery that was not consistent with the majority of the available texts resulted in exclusion.
Again, false. Please refer to Jesus's conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, or John 3:16, or Paul's writings about the gentiles.
Canada and Sweden both have laws defining anti-homosexuality statements as "hate speech".
It was extended before 1958, so unfortunately any corporate-owned works published after 1924 will still be in copyright for a few more decades. If it's owned by Edison's estate, then it would be in copyright until 2021 (death+90).
People have suggested (and even implemented) those measures before. They don't work, and I could probably adapt the "spam control form" to these "ideas", but I'll be more polite. They don't work because they all assume that criminals will follow the law, that most violent crime is committed in the heat of the moment rather than premeditated (and that criminals are impatient and will suddenly turn into schoolboys when faced with a week wait), and that gun shows are a prime vector for guns used in crime. All false.
And I'd rather read funny trolls than ignorant rehashing of the progressive agenda... but I don't want to outlaw ignorant speech because I believe in the first amendment.
YUP! See: .08 "intoxication" limit now in most states.
Anti-gunners want us to believe that it's more common for previously law-abiding citizens who carry guns to commit murder, than defend themselves and others from violent crime.
It still takes about 5 years to recoup the cost of a residential solar system-- even with huge government subsidies!
I'm still hoping Barney Frank could somehow be removed from office for his lies concerning the stability of Fannie and Freddie; they will be delisted this week. He opposed improving oversight back in 2003 and 2005, then when something was done (too late) in 2008, he blamed the response on Bush-- who had recommended better oversight back in 9/11/2003. I'm looking at the article in the NYT RIGHT NOW. "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae". He was, and is, on the financial services committee. If he couldn't see it, he's either crooked or incompetent. Boxer? Fiorina is a rather flawed candidate, but she still has a great chance against that conceited, incompetent, hypocritical buffoon.
Wow, she wanted to honor the county's right to self-determination. THAT'S REALLY CRAZY!
Poisoning the well fallacy, AC. Just because you don't like the organization (or man) doesn't mean they're invalid. If Rasmussen polls were garbage, they wouldn't be used much because, frankly, some people depend on the numbers.
[citation needed]
Or, they're a legitimate organization with accurate numbers. If they were Republican-controlled, wouldn't they want to give her a slightly bigger lead?
I'm pretty sure she never made such a stupidly worded statement. Why do you have to make up a straw man? She's simply stated she's against it, and there's scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is bad for one's overall health. Is it really that difficult for people to brush their teeth in the 21st century USA?
[citation needed] BTW, so did Thomas Jefferson.
Indeed. Maybe we should drop all pretense, and require a 3/5 vote to pass anything. BTW, let's not bring partisanship into this: the Democrats have no qualms about using filibusters when they're in the minority position.
Straw man. States have the least power they have ever had. We're only talking about returning one they used to have-- that doesn't constitute "more say". As for the "why", well, we've been told by the progressives since birth (for anyone who went to public school) that "democracy" is best. The founders knew this was RUBBISH, as they had researched historical democracies and knew why they failed. We have democracy in the form of popular vote, but the indirect elements of a republic protect the interest of groups of people in their States. If you don't like how things are run in your state, at the least you can vote with your feet.
Only because the Supreme Court has declared it so. They decided that the federal government could tell you how to grow food, even if it wasn't going to leave your state or EVEN YOUR HOME, because it COULD leave.
Or even the greater offense of K walking.
No true Scotsman has "Mc" in his name!
That was supposed to be 6 < 1,000,000. I suppose that's what I get for making snide comments.
6 1,000,000
did you died?
Like a battery? Pretty simple solution.
With roadrunner burgers? Mmmm.... roadrunner.
I think most families could see something closer to $10 a month. I've been aware of the "vampire" power problem for years, and before I had a Kill-a-Watt I handled it by noting any "bricks" that remained warm even when their devices were off. But this would be news to most people. There are other opportunities as well, such as the digital cable box that uses almost as much power when off as on (thanks, Motorola)!
OK, well now you know one: me. To your anecdotal evidence, I add mine. As a relatively new home owner, I visit a lot of DIY forums and I assure you, people everywhere are looking for ways to save on energy costs in this economy.