Nope, it doesn't. You shouldn't comment on legal matters. You obviously have no knowledge of the subject.
John Doe lawsuits are common. You sue John Doe for the damage, then use the court's powers of subpoena to identify the human that John Doe represents, and replace John Doe with the culprit. That's quite common. And you should know about that, being on Slashdot, as it's essentially what media companies suing uploaders do. Sue the IP, then attach a person to it later.
It wasn't this bad when Reagan was elected, and of course, Reagan increased the debt by more than any president in history (outside of war), at least by percent. And Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and raised them on the poor. So the complaints at the time seemed quite valid, and were substantiated by Reagan's performance.
The latest studies show that cardio doesn't help drop weight. The issue is that the same time building muscle burns more calories than cardio. Cardio burns a small amount of calories one-time. Muscle increases the base-burn rate more than the cardio does.
Eating less and "exercising" more will lead to weight loss. What the studies try to figure out is how I can eat less and exercise more than someone else of the same size and age, yet I gain weight, while he loses weight.
When nobody can explain that, all the studies done are in question.
If you want to loose weight, ignore these ever changing studies and do the obvious. There is no cheat, there are no excuses.
Great. But I have cut calories and increased activity and gained 50 lbs (over 5 years). How much more do I need to do? Will I ever be able to see results? Nobody, even you, can answer those questions. I know the cause. It's medical. But nobody can explain the causal relationship, or what level of calories and activity will result in getting back to the starting weight and staying there.
That they are right is irrelevant. You don't send a vegetarian to review a BBQ joint. You don't send a lactose intolerant person to review an Italian restaurant. And you don't send CR to review a "fun" car.
And getting out isn't impossible, it just requires lessons. The same lessons I learned on an '84 Corvette, I applied to the more modern super-cars (and race cars with a full-cage). But that's all irrelevant to the point that people buy a Ferrari for one of two reasons: To look like a rich jack-hole, or to go fast, neither or which are measured by CR, so CR will *always* miss the point. When some of the most desired cars on the planet are (or would be) rated poorly by CR, it seems that CR would be wrong, not reality.
In the context of the USA, nobody having a majority in either house means a minority government.
The correct term is "Divided government". Minority government has a specific meaning related to parliamentary governments that doesn't apply in the US.
And, the US does not have a divided governemnt, or minority government. The winner of the presidency is the Republican Party. The winner of the House of Representatives is the Republican Party. The winner of the Senate is the Republican Party.
So tell me how that's "divided" or "minority" or whatever term you want to mis-use.
Remeber, this started when you claimed that an electoral win with a popular vote loss is a "minority governemnt", and you weren't talking about Congress or anything else.
You are now just lying to not look like as big of an idiot as you are. I can scroll up and see your words. They are clear, and quite incorrect. That you fight like an idiot to defend what's trivial to prove wrong demonstrates your insanity. I diagnose it as a neurotic disorder, but would need more tests to further classify it.
That's part of the point. If someone can convince enough electors to vote differently, that's 100% within the Electoral College system as done today. Lose the election, win the presidency. The Electoral College is supposed to overrule the vote. When that hides the popular vote, the Republicans love it. When it doesn't, the Republicans hate it.
For things that are measured, they at least try. For handling, they should refer people to a review from a respectable auto-industry mag. They don't have the rght people to know what's "good". I want to see them review a lamborghini. "Horrible seating position, unsafe reversing visibility, stiff ride, poor mileage." Well, obviously, it's a Lambo.
They are helpful if they reviewed one of the thing you wanted, and then you compare it with others to consider. For something nobody has an opinion on, like refrigerators or clothes dryers.
Stop being a fucking moron. With neither party winning a majority in either house, the only way to pass legislation is to get the cooperation of enough third party votes.
That's not what you said. You said: "nobody got a majority. "
That's irrelevant. The Republicans won the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. That's not a "minority government" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Minority government is where Congress (or Parliment) has a split to where no one party has a clear majoriy. That is not the case in the US. Every possible definition of your words indicates you are wrong. You are a lying idiot who has been told the truth and continues to lies because that's more convenient for your personal fiction.
When you decide to stop being a liar and want to learn how reality works. Unlike you, I know what a minority government is because I do live under one, right now, and not your lies to assert that a unanimous single-party government is a "minority" government.
If you don't know what the big words mean, stop using them. If you are corrected by someone who dees know them (and politely links Wikipedia definitions for your edification), stop being an asshole.
You don't understand because you are, as you've often shown, and idiot. I could explain why, but I would be an idiot too if I bothered.
You are a lying idiot. If you don't like my links to Wikipedia proving you a lying idiot, feel free to point me to any definition of "minority government" that defines it as you have. But you can't because it doesn't exist. And you won't try because you can't see your keyboard or monotor through all the mouth-foam you spittle everywhere when someone dares correct your lying idiocy.
You just had an election where neither one got 50% of the popular vote.
Where are you? "*You* just had an election" implies an exclusivity between yourself and the election.
Third parties sucked enough votes away to make differences in several of the contests.
Nope. Unless you think that 100% of Gary voters would have gone Hillary, the numbers voting Gary were 3-5 times Jill, so if the split was "conservative" vs "liberal" the 3rd party vote hurt Trump more than Hillary, and Trump won, so the 3rd party vote didn't have any effect on the election.
A minority government is going to have to broker peace with one of the 3rd parties or no legislation gets past.
Nope. A president elected with 20% of the popular vote (theoretically possible, but not in any way realistic) is 100% president, and needs no bargains or peace with anyone to hold that position for at least 4 years.
What you call a "minority government" is what is generally called a "divided" government in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... But the margin by which the president is elected is irrelevant to that. A 100% win/landslide with a split government would still be a "minority government" And if the Republicans hold 51% of the House and 51% of the Senate and won the presidency with 40% of the popular vote and fewer votes than the loser, there is no "split".
It sounds like you are lecturing others on it, when you have no clue how it works.
Or do you have a problem with that?
I have a problem with your facts being 100% wrong, and saying things like:
You don't understand because you are, as you've often shown, and idiot.
When I point out your obvious errors. Your aggressive attacks on others are unwarranted, especially when you are the one obviously and provably wrong. But keep foaming at the mouth. Seems to be your sole reason for living.
the US mainstream media completely discredited itself in the recent election by coming out in full force backing Hillary.
An opinion piece on Hillary means every fact they give is false?
These sites have a huuuuuge audience, larger than the mainstream media,
That makes them MSM.
"Cheese Pizza" stands for CP, which means child porn in pedo slang.
So says the only pedo here.
If NYT is so obviously wrong, why couldn't you point to any facts to back up your unsubstantiated opinion?
Make up your own mind!
I did. That you refuse to accept reality doesn't mean I didn't think independently. NYT wasn't the first cite I found, but it was one of the larger from the MSM, rather than some conspiracy theorist's blog.
You don't need an "investigation" to determine that I did not kill Prince. But if 10,000 people claimed I did, in the absence of any shred of evidence that I did, there might be an investigation, which would quickly prove I wasn't in the country at the time, had no motive, means or opportunity. That there needs to be an investigation to "prove" the obvious shows the system is broken. Unfounded accusations have resulted in Hillary being under constant investigation for 30 years now, at a cost of more than $1B. I can think of better things to do with $1B than investigate a single person who was never convicted. The sad thing is, some take that as proof that she's guilty and the system is broken. The system is broken, but not how the Hillary Haters claim.
At the time, the expected overlap between jets and rockets was larger. Though with the Space Shuttle, they did finally find something that went into space and used air.
Profiting off a movement does not necessarily mean one is a member. Again, he didn't say anything racist in that, just associated something he owns/runs with a group that's stipulated to be racist. Not the same thing.
If it's so clear, why can't anyone give a clear quote?
Changing your political stance isn't lying. When you ignore political and legal statements, she didn't tell that many lies. Every fact-checking group found Trump to be more lie-filled than Clinton. He was more believable, but never told the truth.
Reality disagrees with your argument. Please check reality and try again.
These personal corporations are most used by athletes, because athletes have the largest income/wealth ratio of anyone.
With your airplane for Bill Gates Trust, you did it all wrong. The trust buys the plane and holds it, no income for Bill. Then when Bill flies, the trust sells a seat to him at $5000, the "market value" of a first class seat. So Bill gets private and exclusive use of a $150M airplane for $5000, and the "tax" is on the $5000 he withdraws from the trust to pay the trust.
Bill wouldn't own the plane. As you state, that'd be stupid (from a tax perspective).
The IRS takes a very dim view (*caugh*Clinton Foundation*caugh*) on using a corporation or foundation to convert personal expenses into untaxable corporate expenses.
The Clinton foundation has done nothing wrong, and is not under criminal investigation. It's the Trump foundation that has been illegally used to pay personal debts of Crooked Donald. The Clinton Foundation is under investigation because thousands of unsubstantiated accusations have been laid against it, and that triggers an "investigation" even with an absence of wrongdoing.
The one thing that the "liberals" forget is that the rich aren't people. They are corporations. So if you eliminate corporate tax, you eliminate tax on the rich. They incorporate, and pay nothing. Personal tax will be paid, to the minimum amount required, but a corporate tax cut increases taxes on the poor and cuts taxes on the rich.
As salaries are taxed, they'd keep their tax burden low by not paying more. The theory that they could pay more if they brought back the cash is not supported by data.
Yes, chemical weapons were found. Almost all were US-made. There was no active chemical weapon program at the time of the invasion, though there was activity to look like one because it strengthened Saddam internally.
A minority government can't exist in a 2-party system. And the topic here is presidential elections, not Congress. So it's 100% impossible to have a "minority government" in the US for the presidency. That you refuse to see your obvious error does not make me an idiot.
In other countries which can have a minority government, the minority groups that help form the government can topple the government with a single sentence (they generally don't, because there would be repercussions, but they could). Nothing anywhere close to this could exist in the US under the current Constitution (and thousands of laws would need to be changed as well).
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it doesn't. You shouldn't comment on legal matters. You obviously have no knowledge of the subject.
John Doe lawsuits are common. You sue John Doe for the damage, then use the court's powers of subpoena to identify the human that John Doe represents, and replace John Doe with the culprit. That's quite common. And you should know about that, being on Slashdot, as it's essentially what media companies suing uploaders do. Sue the IP, then attach a person to it later.
It wasn't this bad when Reagan was elected, and of course, Reagan increased the debt by more than any president in history (outside of war), at least by percent. And Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and raised them on the poor. So the complaints at the time seemed quite valid, and were substantiated by Reagan's performance.
No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:
And Trumps are $449,400. http://www.dailynews.com/gover...
Eating less and "exercising" more will lead to weight loss. What the studies try to figure out is how I can eat less and exercise more than someone else of the same size and age, yet I gain weight, while he loses weight.
When nobody can explain that, all the studies done are in question.
If you want to loose weight, ignore these ever changing studies and do the obvious. There is no cheat, there are no excuses.
Great. But I have cut calories and increased activity and gained 50 lbs (over 5 years). How much more do I need to do? Will I ever be able to see results? Nobody, even you, can answer those questions. I know the cause. It's medical. But nobody can explain the causal relationship, or what level of calories and activity will result in getting back to the starting weight and staying there.
That they are right is irrelevant. You don't send a vegetarian to review a BBQ joint. You don't send a lactose intolerant person to review an Italian restaurant. And you don't send CR to review a "fun" car.
And getting out isn't impossible, it just requires lessons. The same lessons I learned on an '84 Corvette, I applied to the more modern super-cars (and race cars with a full-cage). But that's all irrelevant to the point that people buy a Ferrari for one of two reasons: To look like a rich jack-hole, or to go fast, neither or which are measured by CR, so CR will *always* miss the point. When some of the most desired cars on the planet are (or would be) rated poorly by CR, it seems that CR would be wrong, not reality.
In the context of the USA, nobody having a majority in either house means a minority government.
The correct term is "Divided government". Minority government has a specific meaning related to parliamentary governments that doesn't apply in the US.
And, the US does not have a divided governemnt, or minority government. The winner of the presidency is the Republican Party. The winner of the House of Representatives is the Republican Party. The winner of the Senate is the Republican Party.
So tell me how that's "divided" or "minority" or whatever term you want to mis-use.
Remeber, this started when you claimed that an electoral win with a popular vote loss is a "minority governemnt", and you weren't talking about Congress or anything else.
You are now just lying to not look like as big of an idiot as you are. I can scroll up and see your words. They are clear, and quite incorrect. That you fight like an idiot to defend what's trivial to prove wrong demonstrates your insanity. I diagnose it as a neurotic disorder, but would need more tests to further classify it.
That's part of the point. If someone can convince enough electors to vote differently, that's 100% within the Electoral College system as done today. Lose the election, win the presidency. The Electoral College is supposed to overrule the vote. When that hides the popular vote, the Republicans love it. When it doesn't, the Republicans hate it.
For things that are measured, they at least try. For handling, they should refer people to a review from a respectable auto-industry mag. They don't have the rght people to know what's "good". I want to see them review a lamborghini. "Horrible seating position, unsafe reversing visibility, stiff ride, poor mileage." Well, obviously, it's a Lambo.
They are helpful if they reviewed one of the thing you wanted, and then you compare it with others to consider. For something nobody has an opinion on, like refrigerators or clothes dryers.
Stop being a fucking moron. With neither party winning a majority in either house, the only way to pass legislation is to get the cooperation of enough third party votes.
That's not what you said. You said: "nobody got a majority. "
That's irrelevant. The Republicans won the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. That's not a "minority government" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Minority government is where Congress (or Parliment) has a split to where no one party has a clear majoriy. That is not the case in the US. Every possible definition of your words indicates you are wrong. You are a lying idiot who has been told the truth and continues to lies because that's more convenient for your personal fiction.
When you decide to stop being a liar and want to learn how reality works. Unlike you, I know what a minority government is because I do live under one, right now, and not your lies to assert that a unanimous single-party government is a "minority" government.
If you don't know what the big words mean, stop using them. If you are corrected by someone who dees know them (and politely links Wikipedia definitions for your edification), stop being an asshole.
You don't understand because you are, as you've often shown, and idiot. I could explain why, but I would be an idiot too if I bothered.
You are a lying idiot. If you don't like my links to Wikipedia proving you a lying idiot, feel free to point me to any definition of "minority government" that defines it as you have. But you can't because it doesn't exist. And you won't try because you can't see your keyboard or monotor through all the mouth-foam you spittle everywhere when someone dares correct your lying idiocy.
Nothing on the Internet is true (including this).
You just had an election where neither one got 50% of the popular vote.
Where are you? "*You* just had an election" implies an exclusivity between yourself and the election.
Third parties sucked enough votes away to make differences in several of the contests.
Nope. Unless you think that 100% of Gary voters would have gone Hillary, the numbers voting Gary were 3-5 times Jill, so if the split was "conservative" vs "liberal" the 3rd party vote hurt Trump more than Hillary, and Trump won, so the 3rd party vote didn't have any effect on the election.
A minority government is going to have to broker peace with one of the 3rd parties or no legislation gets past.
Nope. A president elected with 20% of the popular vote (theoretically possible, but not in any way realistic) is 100% president, and needs no bargains or peace with anyone to hold that position for at least 4 years.
What you call a "minority government" is what is generally called a "divided" government in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... But the margin by which the president is elected is irrelevant to that. A 100% win/landslide with a split government would still be a "minority government" And if the Republicans hold 51% of the House and 51% of the Senate and won the presidency with 40% of the popular vote and fewer votes than the loser, there is no "split".
It sounds like you are lecturing others on it, when you have no clue how it works.
Or do you have a problem with that?
I have a problem with your facts being 100% wrong, and saying things like:
You don't understand because you are, as you've often shown, and idiot.
When I point out your obvious errors. Your aggressive attacks on others are unwarranted, especially when you are the one obviously and provably wrong. But keep foaming at the mouth. Seems to be your sole reason for living.
the US mainstream media completely discredited itself in the recent election by coming out in full force backing Hillary.
An opinion piece on Hillary means every fact they give is false?
These sites have a huuuuuge audience, larger than the mainstream media,
That makes them MSM.
"Cheese Pizza" stands for CP, which means child porn in pedo slang.
So says the only pedo here.
If NYT is so obviously wrong, why couldn't you point to any facts to back up your unsubstantiated opinion?
Make up your own mind!
I did. That you refuse to accept reality doesn't mean I didn't think independently. NYT wasn't the first cite I found, but it was one of the larger from the MSM, rather than some conspiracy theorist's blog.
You don't need an "investigation" to determine that I did not kill Prince. But if 10,000 people claimed I did, in the absence of any shred of evidence that I did, there might be an investigation, which would quickly prove I wasn't in the country at the time, had no motive, means or opportunity. That there needs to be an investigation to "prove" the obvious shows the system is broken. Unfounded accusations have resulted in Hillary being under constant investigation for 30 years now, at a cost of more than $1B. I can think of better things to do with $1B than investigate a single person who was never convicted. The sad thing is, some take that as proof that she's guilty and the system is broken. The system is broken, but not how the Hillary Haters claim.
Reality. That and everyone who's ever looked into it. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
At the time, the expected overlap between jets and rockets was larger. Though with the Space Shuttle, they did finally find something that went into space and used air.
Profiting off a movement does not necessarily mean one is a member. Again, he didn't say anything racist in that, just associated something he owns/runs with a group that's stipulated to be racist. Not the same thing.
If it's so clear, why can't anyone give a clear quote?
Then Aeronautics was back when NASA did airplane research. Yes, it was mainly space, but not only.
Plus, if NASA changed its name to NSA, maybe it would finally get some funding.
Changing your political stance isn't lying. When you ignore political and legal statements, she didn't tell that many lies. Every fact-checking group found Trump to be more lie-filled than Clinton. He was more believable, but never told the truth.
Reality disagrees with your argument. Please check reality and try again.
These personal corporations are most used by athletes, because athletes have the largest income/wealth ratio of anyone.
With your airplane for Bill Gates Trust, you did it all wrong. The trust buys the plane and holds it, no income for Bill. Then when Bill flies, the trust sells a seat to him at $5000, the "market value" of a first class seat. So Bill gets private and exclusive use of a $150M airplane for $5000, and the "tax" is on the $5000 he withdraws from the trust to pay the trust.
Bill wouldn't own the plane. As you state, that'd be stupid (from a tax perspective).
The IRS takes a very dim view (*caugh*Clinton Foundation*caugh*) on using a corporation or foundation to convert personal expenses into untaxable corporate expenses.
The Clinton foundation has done nothing wrong, and is not under criminal investigation. It's the Trump foundation that has been illegally used to pay personal debts of Crooked Donald. The Clinton Foundation is under investigation because thousands of unsubstantiated accusations have been laid against it, and that triggers an "investigation" even with an absence of wrongdoing.
The one thing that the "liberals" forget is that the rich aren't people. They are corporations. So if you eliminate corporate tax, you eliminate tax on the rich. They incorporate, and pay nothing. Personal tax will be paid, to the minimum amount required, but a corporate tax cut increases taxes on the poor and cuts taxes on the rich.
As salaries are taxed, they'd keep their tax burden low by not paying more. The theory that they could pay more if they brought back the cash is not supported by data.
We assume we are infallible. There's no reason to verify this.
You misunderstand. He's going to "incentivize Apple". That means it will cost every taxpayer $2000 per iPhone, and the buyer $1000.
Corporate welfare, no drug tests needed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Yes, chemical weapons were found. Almost all were US-made. There was no active chemical weapon program at the time of the invasion, though there was activity to look like one because it strengthened Saddam internally.
Feel free to prove me wrong with cites and facts.
A minority government can't exist in a 2-party system. And the topic here is presidential elections, not Congress. So it's 100% impossible to have a "minority government" in the US for the presidency. That you refuse to see your obvious error does not make me an idiot.
In other countries which can have a minority government, the minority groups that help form the government can topple the government with a single sentence (they generally don't, because there would be repercussions, but they could). Nothing anywhere close to this could exist in the US under the current Constitution (and thousands of laws would need to be changed as well).