By going through Airbnb or similar services you just ignore those laws,
Nope. Depends on the host. My host in Paris and Rome most certainly did more paperwork that looked to comply with the laws you imply. But the Venice host looked to be a student that flats elsewhere when "illegally" renting out his regular place.
The one in Rome was an actual hotel, listed and registered as such, but doing AirBnB because it's a non-traditional hotel (more like a traditional BnB without breakfast), and AirBnB brings in non-traditional customers. Or the apartment complex in SG that uses AirBnB to help fill empty units until a permanent tenant can be found. Also doing business under hotel rules, as far as someone staying there can tell.
Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
No. And I've never seen any study that could be construed to lead to that conclusion. Your assertion is that adopted kids are inferior. That has been studied, and hasn't been found to be true.
So your assertions seem to be based on bigotry, not reason.
(Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it,
Yeah, like when interracial marriage was talked about, and "the half-breed kids will belong to neither race, and will obviously be inferior to either" was "honest" talk. Thankfully, your type of "honest" talk is considered irrational bigotry. That's not a fault in the "political climate" as you assert.
Prove your post is not misinformation. I can find some references to the confederate flags between the war and WWII, but not nearly as many as after. Why? Is is just that because racism was so tolerated that nobody thought it unusual to fly the racist flag in those times? Or just because it wasn't done? Without a time machine, I doubt we'll ever really know. IT's not like Wal-mart kept records of how many confederate flags they sold from 1910 to 1930 (well, they did, and they are all 0, but that's for other reasons).
And the intent of the federal highway funding law was for state speed limits with state subsidies to force conservative states into having the same speed limits. And that's been tested and found legal, so again, not sure what the distinction is here.
"Militia" in the most permissive definition, means "everyone". Because a well trained populous is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first half is a (false) declaration of fact. The second is a requirement of the government. That you can prove the first half false doesn't relax the commandment in the second half.
Many concessions were made to get bi-partisan support. But when the time came for the vote, no Republicans would vote for it, despite promises to vote for it if it had concessions.
Obama should have pushed through a wider single payer system, since it would have received the same number of Republican votes.
I'm glad you agree with the minority in today's decision.
I agree with the decision in a vacuum, but no decision is made in a vacuum. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it's fine for the feds to extort unconstitutional laws from the states. For consistency, the majority was right. If you are a corporate whore who changes your mind depending on ideology, not law, then the minority was right.
That's explicitly legal. The federal highway funds have been similarly held hostage for 50+ years, without a successful challenge. Forcing speed limits, seatbelt laws, drinking laws, and all sorts of other "unconstitutional" things, by extorting the states to do them themselves.
Unfortunately, Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Legislative that can only weaken our rights and liberty.
Only if you assume that the one who ceded can't uncede.
Though every problem comes back to FPP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would be a much better system, but the one thing both parties agree on is they don't want electoral change. It weakens their monopoly, so it'll never happen.
Abolish the elections as held today. Have the MMP system adopted, with electorate winners making up the Senate, and list members making up the House. Though, most systems using MMP don't have two houses, so I expect this would cause major problems, but the problems could be good. The smaller parties will be concentrated in the House, so the Senate would represent the big parties. That was the original intent, but didn't work out as expected, when parties trumped the checks and balances, and judges worked with executives and legislators to break the intentions, leading to what we have now. So I don't know if the original idea was ever a stable one, in a world of politics.
Slavery around the world came to a close about the same time for many different places. Russia, the US and others. It wasn't human rights as much as economic. The start of the industrial revolution demonstrated that buying a human to do work wasn't as efficient as buying a machine that could do the work of 10 men, and was more predictable of an asset (less likely to get sick, "injuries" had complete recovery assured, though at a cost).
Few of the "rank and file" soldiers had any chance of ever owning a slave.
Rarely in wars have the rank and file soldiers have had any chance of ever owning that which was being fought over, so that doesn't seem to be a compelling argument.
Actually, slavery was waning and neither side considered it the primary issue.
Yet every secessionist declaration mentioned it, some as the primary reason. Yes, one can argue now that everything said at the time were political lies but if one does that, what do you listen to from either side? Only that which supports your opinion, is the apparent answer (not a comment about sjames personally, but the wording from just about everyone I see here).
While to many, the Confederate Flag represents states rights, Southern heritage, the right to rebel (against whatever), the fact of the matter is that the Confederate Flag now represents racism to the vast majority of people.
It was explicitly brought back during the civil rights movement as a racist flag. The flag was not popular or prevelant in the South between the civil war and the start of the civil rights movement, and was a reaction, and resistance to the civil rights movement. At least that's what I've been hearing about it. I'm not old enough to have seen first-hand.
Depends on how you define "price". Most people say something like "the amount someone pays for something". In which case, the average house cost to the buyer is the same at 3% or 14%. People buy houses based on monthly payment, not transaction amount. So the effective "price" is the monthly payment to buy the house at 20% down and 30 year mortgage. And that "price" is relatively unchanged by the interest rate. The interest rate just changes the numbers on the amortization table.
It's sustainable so long as the number of new entrants is smaller than the population growth. And in nearly all cases, that's been true (I'd say "all", as it is all I know of, but it's possible that there's an exception).
Rent seeking may be immoral by your standards, but the system is designed that it's the "easiest" way to wealth. Low risk, and effectively subsidized by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
He was punished by his employer for bringing his employer into disrepute. That's an action. And has a tangible, measurable negative effect.
By going through Airbnb or similar services you just ignore those laws,
Nope. Depends on the host. My host in Paris and Rome most certainly did more paperwork that looked to comply with the laws you imply. But the Venice host looked to be a student that flats elsewhere when "illegally" renting out his regular place.
The one in Rome was an actual hotel, listed and registered as such, but doing AirBnB because it's a non-traditional hotel (more like a traditional BnB without breakfast), and AirBnB brings in non-traditional customers. Or the apartment complex in SG that uses AirBnB to help fill empty units until a permanent tenant can be found. Also doing business under hotel rules, as far as someone staying there can tell.
Was the punishment for anything other than his alleged holding an offensive opinion? Yes.
Ergo, he was punished for a thoughtcrime.
He wasn't punished for having thoughts. He was punished for the *action* of expressing them.
There's a difference. One missed by everyone I've ever seen talk about "thoughtcrime".
Hard to win a wrongful termination for a "volunteer" position.
Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
No. And I've never seen any study that could be construed to lead to that conclusion. Your assertion is that adopted kids are inferior. That has been studied, and hasn't been found to be true.
So your assertions seem to be based on bigotry, not reason.
(Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it,
Yeah, like when interracial marriage was talked about, and "the half-breed kids will belong to neither race, and will obviously be inferior to either" was "honest" talk. Thankfully, your type of "honest" talk is considered irrational bigotry. That's not a fault in the "political climate" as you assert.
Has that ever happened? They rarely give the fired person time to "respond" but if he were 100% provably innocent, he'd have been able to say so.
I've not seen anything come out where the profile was a frame-up.
Prove your post is not misinformation. I can find some references to the confederate flags between the war and WWII, but not nearly as many as after. Why? Is is just that because racism was so tolerated that nobody thought it unusual to fly the racist flag in those times? Or just because it wasn't done? Without a time machine, I doubt we'll ever really know. IT's not like Wal-mart kept records of how many confederate flags they sold from 1910 to 1930 (well, they did, and they are all 0, but that's for other reasons).
Fraud, threats, harassment are all protected?
Thus, the supreme court ruled incorrectly.
Not possible, by definition.
No, changing the drinking age from 18 to 21 is not related to driving.
"Militia" in the most permissive definition, means "everyone". Because a well trained populous is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first half is a (false) declaration of fact. The second is a requirement of the government. That you can prove the first half false doesn't relax the commandment in the second half.
Many concessions were made to get bi-partisan support. But when the time came for the vote, no Republicans would vote for it, despite promises to vote for it if it had concessions.
Obama should have pushed through a wider single payer system, since it would have received the same number of Republican votes.
I'm glad you agree with the minority in today's decision.
I agree with the decision in a vacuum, but no decision is made in a vacuum. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it's fine for the feds to extort unconstitutional laws from the states. For consistency, the majority was right. If you are a corporate whore who changes your mind depending on ideology, not law, then the minority was right.
That's explicitly legal. The federal highway funds have been similarly held hostage for 50+ years, without a successful challenge. Forcing speed limits, seatbelt laws, drinking laws, and all sorts of other "unconstitutional" things, by extorting the states to do them themselves.
Unfortunately, Congress is ceding power to both the Executive and Legislative that can only weaken our rights and liberty.
Only if you assume that the one who ceded can't uncede.
Though every problem comes back to FPP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would be a much better system, but the one thing both parties agree on is they don't want electoral change. It weakens their monopoly, so it'll never happen.
Abolish the elections as held today. Have the MMP system adopted, with electorate winners making up the Senate, and list members making up the House. Though, most systems using MMP don't have two houses, so I expect this would cause major problems, but the problems could be good. The smaller parties will be concentrated in the House, so the Senate would represent the big parties. That was the original intent, but didn't work out as expected, when parties trumped the checks and balances, and judges worked with executives and legislators to break the intentions, leading to what we have now. So I don't know if the original idea was ever a stable one, in a world of politics.
Slavery around the world came to a close about the same time for many different places. Russia, the US and others. It wasn't human rights as much as economic. The start of the industrial revolution demonstrated that buying a human to do work wasn't as efficient as buying a machine that could do the work of 10 men, and was more predictable of an asset (less likely to get sick, "injuries" had complete recovery assured, though at a cost).
Few of the "rank and file" soldiers had any chance of ever owning a slave.
Rarely in wars have the rank and file soldiers have had any chance of ever owning that which was being fought over, so that doesn't seem to be a compelling argument.
Actually, slavery was waning and neither side considered it the primary issue.
Yet every secessionist declaration mentioned it, some as the primary reason. Yes, one can argue now that everything said at the time were political lies but if one does that, what do you listen to from either side? Only that which supports your opinion, is the apparent answer (not a comment about sjames personally, but the wording from just about everyone I see here).
While to many, the Confederate Flag represents states rights, Southern heritage, the right to rebel (against whatever), the fact of the matter is that the Confederate Flag now represents racism to the vast majority of people.
It was explicitly brought back during the civil rights movement as a racist flag. The flag was not popular or prevelant in the South between the civil war and the start of the civil rights movement, and was a reaction, and resistance to the civil rights movement. At least that's what I've been hearing about it. I'm not old enough to have seen first-hand.
And you trust your life to those with no reviews.
So jaywalking to save a baby in a runaway stroller is "wrong", but watching it roll past isn't?
Depends on how you define "price". Most people say something like "the amount someone pays for something". In which case, the average house cost to the buyer is the same at 3% or 14%. People buy houses based on monthly payment, not transaction amount. So the effective "price" is the monthly payment to buy the house at 20% down and 30 year mortgage. And that "price" is relatively unchanged by the interest rate. The interest rate just changes the numbers on the amortization table.
It's sustainable so long as the number of new entrants is smaller than the population growth. And in nearly all cases, that's been true (I'd say "all", as it is all I know of, but it's possible that there's an exception).
Rent seeking may be immoral by your standards, but the system is designed that it's the "easiest" way to wealth. Low risk, and effectively subsidized by the government.
Too big for g01d4.
I heard it was the cheapest place to watch the English Premier League games, without previous sports package TV service.