Looks to me like they were over the property of the gun clubs when it was shot. In the video, it's at the edge of the road, they girl tells him to angle it differently and it goes over the woods. After the last shot they bring it back over the woods and it drops into the middle of the road. I'm pretty sure that's how the sheriff sees it too since they aren't doing anything. This group has lost these things on their property before. I see no reason to believe this is any different.
Birdshot is what would be used to hunt pigeons. However, it is not illegal to fire a gun into the air. People use riffles and hand guns to hunt coon and squirrel all the time when they are in the trees.
You are somewhat right though, I am responsible for the bullet when it stops. If that is in a person or one someone else' property and it does damage, then I can be liable for it. However, when it's on my property, it's your fault for flying your toy in front of my bullet.
lol.. no they don't. No one has died or even been seriously injured from shooting bird shot into the air. And bullets do not magically travel forever. As long as the path of trajectory is clear, its safe. People pack around the shoreline and even into boats on the water all the time to shoot at duck in the air.
I'm within my rights to shoot my gun in any safe distance at any safe angle. Its not my fault their invasion of my property placed their expensive toy in the path of the bullet. Its not like the thing was human or anything.
Yes. Just like with any other Internet provider: they can cancel your access if they don't like what you say or do.
Actually, no they cannot. Access to goods and services is highly regulated in this respect. You would have to show they didn't pay the bill or degraded the services offered in some way. Contrary to popular opinion, you cannot reserve the right to refuse service to anyone without legal consequences. Most states even have this embedded in law too. But there are even more restrictions here because as you pointed out, it's a government funded school and the government cannot refuse any service offered to anyone based on a protected speech right.
The "separation of church and state" is a shorthand for the non-establishment clause. The non-establishment clause doesn't say what you claim it says. The non-establishment clause says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I think you are confused. The establishment clause is about a letter written to a bishop by Thomas Jefferson explaining that the government cannot force a religion onto people and denies them the ability to restrict your choices in any religion due to the first amendment which not only restricts the government from respecting a religion but prohibiting the free exercise of it. Of course the first amendment says something different then what I said, but I wasn't quoting it, I was explaining its function.
Slavery was clearly in violation of the intent and meaning of the US Constitution from the start; the 13th amendment merely clarified the issue. In any case, even after 1865, turning constitutional law into practice took more than a century. The point is that just because people get away with doing things one way for a long time doesn't mean that that way is constitutional.
Wow.. Just wow. That is an outright factual lie. There is a completely documented history surrounding the issues of slavery and it is well known that many of the states never would have ratified the constitution if slavery was prohibited by it. Some people actually tried to abolish slavery in the constitution and it was intentionally removed in order to gain acceptance of all 13 original colonies.
You cannot reinvent history and redefine what words mean just to make an argument. I'm not even sure how this claim you made could be considered a mistake. I'm having trouble seeing it as anything other then an intentional outright lie. Either someone lied to you, or you are fabricating shit intentionally.
I want the constitutional level of separation: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We are still pretty far from realizing that, since there are many laws (including spending laws) that "respect" and favor Christianity.
I think you are delusional and just don't know what in the hell you are talking about. The US constitution does not prevent schools funded by government from offering anything religious nor does it restrict religious views being expressed on infrastructure possessed by them. You clearly do not understand the US constitution and I'm not sure your fallacy isn't a sign of problems you might have with reality.
I believe the NSU rules are actually about that. They just got mixed up in many people's minds with a lot of other, more complicated on-campus speech issues.
No, the NSU rules appear to apply to the campus network as well as the internet provided by them. Sitting in your dorm room arguing this on the internet can put you in violation of those rules.
Indeed. And after graduating, you are also in violation of workplace policies if you use your employer's computers or networks for personal use.
This is so not like a workplace environment that it isn't even funny that you equate the two. A work place does not require you to live on campus or provide housing then expect you to follow those policies in those areas.
And this issue has been an important one in the question of separation of church and state, and considerable progress has been made. Military chaplaincy can be made compatible with the non-establishment clause, it just requires some care.
First, there is no separation of church and state in the constitution. The establishment clause simply disallows the government from forcing a religion onto people and denies them the ability to restrict your choices in any religion. This is more important in k-12 education because students are compelled by law to attend. It does not matter as much in trade or college level schools as attendance is voluntary and courses are elective. A public funded school can and some do offer degrees in religion or religious studies and even denomination specific religions. Iowa and Michigan State universities come to mind but there are others. The military Chaplin is no different in this regard.
The founders and many states "willfully" violated people's civil rights in many ways, starting with slavery. You can't turn around a nation on a dime, so when they wrote the Constitution, they knew it would take a while to realize what it stood for. But like civil rights, separation of church and state and religious liberty has made steady progress over the past 200 years.
Are you seriously that daft? Slavery was not abolished in the constitutional until 80 years after the country was founded. It actually took an amendment, not a reworking of the understanding of some existing provision in order to suit your desires. If you want the level of separation you are suggesting, it will take an amendment to get it because it simply is not there as currently written. You are wrong and confused about what you are reading. The First Amendment does not say what you think it says.
Exactly! An analogy: you divide people into tall and short, which is a perfectly good way to categorize and might be valid for, say, amusement part rides. But since the topic is legal responsibility, I think age is more appropriate. Of course when you replace 'age' with 'height' (because you think they're not just related, but identical) then my argument becomes absurd.
I'm not sure why you are insisting on arguing something that wasn't argued. I didn't divide people up, I made comments about people's actions. Do you somehow think introducing a red herring will strengthen your position that is failing otherwise?
I agree that previous actions set up a pattern of behavior, and sometimes only changes in behavior are important, so normalcy and deviation are a good division for some purposes. But for other purposes (whether my inventory is different, or the ownership of things has changed, or I've agreed to something) we probably should use a different division which we might call action (or activity, or 'doing something'). And when we're dealing with that division, history is irrelevant.
Not at all. My position assumes nothing has changed other then someone's willingness to sell to a specific person. Action and deviation is exactly the same.
I could go on about how this is a gross misrepresentation of estoppel, or an attitude of entitlement, but I'll try my standard liberal counterargument - take out the money and see how well the argument works: Imagine if the last time someone broke up with you that you had gone to court and demanded that they keep having sex with you (or keep buying you nice dinners, or keep helping with that term paper), arguing that they were 'depriving you' of something that they 'owed' to you so long as you kept up your half of the relationship 'bargain'.
You could go on about estoppel and entitlement, but you would be showing how ignorant you are. You specifically asked about morality not legality. All the sudden switching that does not help your case. In fact, it shows how weak your argument is when you cannot keep it to the confines you set. You further adulterate it by injecting some mythical depriving of sex argument in law. The courts have never suggested anyone had a right to sex, they have said people have a right to not be denied sex as long as it is consensual (sodomy laws, interracial relationships and so on).
But lets change your argument to one that more closely faces reality. Suppose someone's wife was a stay at home wife who depended on her husbands income for survival. She catches him cheating on her and decides it is time to leave. She goes to court to demand that he continue to support her and enable her to live a similar lifestyle she had been accustomed to until she can find a job doing the same. This happens all the time and women as well as men get alimony all the time. But this and your ill thought out example really has nothing to do with how a business or person acts in an emergency situation. It's worse then apples to oranges comparisons, you're trying to submit apples to bananas and bringing up ham steaks to support the claim.
You'd never even think of doing something so horrid, would you? And even if you did, you wouldn't expect any first-world court to buy that argument. But why does swapping 'gas' for 'sex' suddenly make the argument valid? The only differences are that one is a personal relationship and one is business, and that one is life-and-death and the other isn't. The first leads down the well-worn path of 'money is so different that is justifies anything', the other leads me to asking for evidence before I support sending people to prison.
Swapping sex for anything of value is prostitution. Some areas outlaw that while others allow it. I personally do not care about it one way or the other. If you are so desperate that you have to trade goods for sex with someone else tha
Nobody is forcing you to attend public university. If you don't like the rules and restrictions, you are perfectly free to leave. And, yes, using public funding to promote a religious cause is in violation of the establishment clause. When "religious schools" take public funding, it is generally for other purpose.
Those rules and restrictions do not exist because of the US constitution or the establishment clause which is missing from the constitution. Those are claims you erroneously made. The US military has had a Chaplin in it and has offered/performed religious service since the inception. If what you say is true, the founders of the country as well as every entity that signed and ratified the US constitution must be willfully violating it. Or perhaps you are completely wrong.
There is even an arguable point about the universities denying speech in the first place is a severe violation of the US constitution. The first amendment places restrictions on government entities denying speech too. It specifically spells out that it cannot deny religious freedom to anyone.
Your argument simply does not hold water.
Of course, we haven't enforced the non-establishment clause consistently in the past, but restrictions like those we are talking about here show that that is changing. You're welcome to try and sue your local public university to force them to let you put up a religious web site under their name. I predict you'll be laughed out of court.
If the university allows students to put up websites under their name, then I could do that and win. However, I don't believe the rules outlined were about putting things up in the university's name. It was about using university internet resources which means campus wifi and internet delivered to the dorms. It is about using the campus computer lab and checking in on slashdot- which if you are commenting on this story because of it's political nature and personal views being expressed would put you in violation of it.
I believe that action/inaction is the proper dividing line, and you believe that it should be normalcy/deviation. Those are two perfectly reasonable point of view, and we could have a good discussion about it. But you simply refuse to acknowledge that I'm even making that particular argument, and instead assume I'm saying something completely different.
I don't think you understand. I see the entirety of action/deviation:inaction/normalcy as the exact same. I simply do not see them as separate points. I'll explain a bit more in my answer to your next statement.
If you really want to keep doing this, please just answer one question: Is refusing to sell your coat to someone morally different from stealing their coat?
The answer to this depends on if you are in the business of selling coats or listed your coat for sale. You see, if you are not in that business or aren't selling a coat, then refusing to sell one to anyone would be inaction/normalcy. But if you are in the business or are selling a coat and that someone has otherwise the ability to meet your requirements, in that case, not selling is action/deviation. As for the morality of it, I do not really think I'm arguing morality- I'm arguing culpability for actions you take. But if I must make a morality measurement, if you aren't already selling a coat, then it's more immoral to steal a coat from someone. If you are selling coats and refuse to sell to someone for whatever reason, it is about the same as stealing the coat.
The parent is the "informed idiot". The case he was talking about is well documented. The reported wanted to include statements detrimental to monsanto and GM feed going into milk being produced locally. The local station told them to cut that out and present the story without it. The reported didn't and were fired. The reporters attempted to file a claim under the whistle blower protection laws and lost.
How not presenting details turns into lieing probably has more to do with his interpretation (lies) then anything.
You need to sit down with your constitutional law professor and ask him why he's stealing money from you. No, I'm being serious, because you certainly aren't learning anything from it.
Actually, it's not in violation of the establishment clause. A violation would be it being required for some degree or attendance not relating to the rest of the courses. Religious schools can and do take public funding every day.
As for the personal views, some people are somewhat locked into university resources when they pay to stay in the dorms or a frat house. Those people do not lose any rights when they do that.
No, there is no strawman here. The situation is the same, if a cop doesn't turn the camera on, all the evidence and everything else will not magically disappear, the case will not be dismissed and it doesn't automagically allow the defense to insinuate something without evidence outside the act to support it. The OJ trial had plenty of evidence showing a pattern of cover ups and misbehavior and even that the lead detective was a racist (in appearance at least). None of that was due to some evidence missing. None of that was due to clerical errors, those things existed in real life outside of the OJ case which is why it was allowed in to show a pattern supporting the claims about the evidence of the case. Without that outside supporting evidence, the claim couldn't be made..
Breathing normally is not doing anything? Not just metaphorically, not just "nothing unusual", but literally nothing at all, even though you have to keep doing it?
You can't be this stupid can you? Selling something in the first place is doing something. It's the deviation from normal that is the point. Fuck dude, I don't know how to make it more clear without a crayon and paper to draw you a fucking picture. There is nothing obtuse about this.
But as I pointed out before, the language is irrelevant - swap "action/inaction" with "exchange/not exchange" or "type A activities/type B activities" if you like. No wordplay will get you escape the fact that refusing to sell your coat to someone is morally quite different from stealing their coat, no matter how similar the result is for the other person, or what situational factors lead to your decision, including price.
Wordplay must not be irrelevant. You are certainly spending as much time as possible on it while pretending it somehow helps your case. All it is really doing is showing how little we should trust your judgement.
I can't begin to understand your level of obtuseness. We live in a free society, legality is presumed. This means the supporters of a law prohibiting something (not those in favor of repealing a law) have the obligation to present a case for that prohibition, including evidence of the likely difference that law makes or will make. What the law is currently, what other people believe, and what authorities support are all irrelevant to a discussion of what the law should be.
Are there not laws making things illegal in this society? Is it still called or considered free? The mere fact that you say we live in a free society means you are wrong on this because the laws already exist and they have existed in some cases, longer then you have been alive. The law, the case for it, all that has already been presented and accepted when they were made into law. It's a done deal.The only one supposing a change to the law as it exists is you in fighting for what you think is your right to take advantage of an emergency to gank massive profits that you otherwise would not be able to gain. I've made my case extremely well, your inability to understand it, or even the concept of normal and the deviation from it doesn't change that. Perhaps you can post an address and I'll have my 5 year old draw you a picture and send it to you. Maybe then you will understand. Then again, maybe your greed is too powerful.
They won't get your point. I'm not sure it is even valid. Romney talked past to many people in trying to get his message out and treated the targets of it as if they were smarter and more in the know then they were. That was Romney's biggest failure of the campaigns. Your portrayal of the contraception and legitimate rape definition is proof of that. They didn't make those an issue, they made statements on the concepts of them (big government, abortion) and others made it an issue.
But they lost by 2%. A 2% loss does not indicate the need to throw everything out and start over. Especially when that means it worked to gain the 98% of voted needed to win the white house. Neither party is trying to convince 100% of the populous to vote for them, they are working for 51% or better.
You do not know the GOP doesn't support the copyright reform indicated by the other memo. All this memo says is that the other had not been properly processed through the review of the comity and that step was important.
Anything outside of that is completely in your mind at this point. The article submission doesn't make it clear where the memo stops and the submitter's opinion starts but it's clear if you follow the link to the story.
I know why you posted that as AC. It is because you are too ashamed to take credit for it because it contradicts itself. Two previous bankruptcies in the past ten year and on the third is no where near profitable. Those are your words, I pointed to the problem with them.
And if those people worked for free, it would have covered what, 30 yearly salaries of union workers without benefits? Lets pad it a bit and say 60 worker's salaries. 60 out of 18,000- A nice bitching point when your mad, but a pretty pointless point to complain about what someone else is making for a living when the scale is so huge.
I doubt you could. The problem with hostess is that they needed to downsize and diversify and the employees wouldn't allow that. You can have the best management in the world and get crapped out by a Union hell bent on taking.
You will be when you use that artificial muscle to do what you do on that computer. Your grandmother still won't go near a computer after she came over to check on you that one day school got out early.
Well, it does until you start asking who and why.:Like who are you paying and why do they need to you pay it.
No one, absolutely no one, has specified what the payments would actually do to fix AGW. If we had an international team of scientists, engineers, economists, and entrepreneurs who's sole purpose was to mitigate the effects of AGW, by creating economical processes emitting less carbon or even eliminating it altogether, sequestering systems of the same, ways to protect adversely impacted areas and so on, we might have a plan. But paying someone just because someone needs to pay is one of those games no one plays after the buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks to me like they were over the property of the gun clubs when it was shot. In the video, it's at the edge of the road, they girl tells him to angle it differently and it goes over the woods. After the last shot they bring it back over the woods and it drops into the middle of the road. I'm pretty sure that's how the sheriff sees it too since they aren't doing anything. This group has lost these things on their property before. I see no reason to believe this is any different.
Birdshot is what would be used to hunt pigeons. However, it is not illegal to fire a gun into the air. People use riffles and hand guns to hunt coon and squirrel all the time when they are in the trees.
You are somewhat right though, I am responsible for the bullet when it stops. If that is in a person or one someone else' property and it does damage, then I can be liable for it. However, when it's on my property, it's your fault for flying your toy in front of my bullet.
lol.. no they don't. No one has died or even been seriously injured from shooting bird shot into the air. And bullets do not magically travel forever. As long as the path of trajectory is clear, its safe. People pack around the shoreline and even into boats on the water all the time to shoot at duck in the air.
Interfering with the lawful taking of game is. At least in the state it happened.
what multiple crimes?
Try squab.. Its very good. It can be made several different ways.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNsVW6LxS7Q
I'm within my rights to shoot my gun in any safe distance at any safe angle. Its not my fault their invasion of my property placed their expensive toy in the path of the bullet. Its not like the thing was human or anything.
Actually, no they cannot. Access to goods and services is highly regulated in this respect. You would have to show they didn't pay the bill or degraded the services offered in some way. Contrary to popular opinion, you cannot reserve the right to refuse service to anyone without legal consequences. Most states even have this embedded in law too. But there are even more restrictions here because as you pointed out, it's a government funded school and the government cannot refuse any service offered to anyone based on a protected speech right.
I think you are confused. The establishment clause is about a letter written to a bishop by Thomas Jefferson explaining that the government cannot force a religion onto people and denies them the ability to restrict your choices in any religion due to the first amendment which not only restricts the government from respecting a religion but prohibiting the free exercise of it. Of course the first amendment says something different then what I said, but I wasn't quoting it, I was explaining its function.
Wow.. Just wow. That is an outright factual lie. There is a completely documented history surrounding the issues of slavery and it is well known that many of the states never would have ratified the constitution if slavery was prohibited by it. Some people actually tried to abolish slavery in the constitution and it was intentionally removed in order to gain acceptance of all 13 original colonies.
You cannot reinvent history and redefine what words mean just to make an argument. I'm not even sure how this claim you made could be considered a mistake. I'm having trouble seeing it as anything other then an intentional outright lie. Either someone lied to you, or you are fabricating shit intentionally.
I think you are delusional and just don't know what in the hell you are talking about. The US constitution does not prevent schools funded by government from offering anything religious nor does it restrict religious views being expressed on infrastructure possessed by them. You clearly do not understand the US constitution and I'm not sure your fallacy isn't a sign of problems you might have with reality.
No, the NSU rules appear to apply to the campus network as well as the internet provided by them. Sitting in your dorm room arguing this on the internet can put you in violation of those rules.
This is so not like a workplace environment that it isn't even funny that you equate the two. A work place does not require you to live on campus or provide housing then expect you to follow those policies in those areas.
First, there is no separation of church and state in the constitution. The establishment clause simply disallows the government from forcing a religion onto people and denies them the ability to restrict your choices in any religion. This is more important in k-12 education because students are compelled by law to attend. It does not matter as much in trade or college level schools as attendance is voluntary and courses are elective. A public funded school can and some do offer degrees in religion or religious studies and even denomination specific religions. Iowa and Michigan State universities come to mind but there are others. The military Chaplin is no different in this regard.
Are you seriously that daft? Slavery was not abolished in the constitutional until 80 years after the country was founded. It actually took an amendment, not a reworking of the understanding of some existing provision in order to suit your desires. If you want the level of separation you are suggesting, it will take an amendment to get it because it simply is not there as currently written. You are wrong and confused about what you are reading. The First Amendment does not say what you think it says.
I'm not sure why you are insisting on arguing something that wasn't argued. I didn't divide people up, I made comments about people's actions. Do you somehow think introducing a red herring will strengthen your position that is failing otherwise?
Not at all. My position assumes nothing has changed other then someone's willingness to sell to a specific person. Action and deviation is exactly the same.
You could go on about estoppel and entitlement, but you would be showing how ignorant you are. You specifically asked about morality not legality. All the sudden switching that does not help your case. In fact, it shows how weak your argument is when you cannot keep it to the confines you set. You further adulterate it by injecting some mythical depriving of sex argument in law. The courts have never suggested anyone had a right to sex, they have said people have a right to not be denied sex as long as it is consensual (sodomy laws, interracial relationships and so on).
But lets change your argument to one that more closely faces reality. Suppose someone's wife was a stay at home wife who depended on her husbands income for survival. She catches him cheating on her and decides it is time to leave. She goes to court to demand that he continue to support her and enable her to live a similar lifestyle she had been accustomed to until she can find a job doing the same. This happens all the time and women as well as men get alimony all the time. But this and your ill thought out example really has nothing to do with how a business or person acts in an emergency situation. It's worse then apples to oranges comparisons, you're trying to submit apples to bananas and bringing up ham steaks to support the claim.
Swapping sex for anything of value is prostitution. Some areas outlaw that while others allow it. I personally do not care about it one way or the other. If you are so desperate that you have to trade goods for sex with someone else tha
Those rules and restrictions do not exist because of the US constitution or the establishment clause which is missing from the constitution. Those are claims you erroneously made. The US military has had a Chaplin in it and has offered/performed religious service since the inception. If what you say is true, the founders of the country as well as every entity that signed and ratified the US constitution must be willfully violating it. Or perhaps you are completely wrong.
There is even an arguable point about the universities denying speech in the first place is a severe violation of the US constitution. The first amendment places restrictions on government entities denying speech too. It specifically spells out that it cannot deny religious freedom to anyone.
Your argument simply does not hold water.
If the university allows students to put up websites under their name, then I could do that and win. However, I don't believe the rules outlined were about putting things up in the university's name. It was about using university internet resources which means campus wifi and internet delivered to the dorms. It is about using the campus computer lab and checking in on slashdot- which if you are commenting on this story because of it's political nature and personal views being expressed would put you in violation of it.
I don't think you understand. I see the entirety of action/deviation:inaction/normalcy as the exact same. I simply do not see them as separate points. I'll explain a bit more in my answer to your next statement.
The answer to this depends on if you are in the business of selling coats or listed your coat for sale. You see, if you are not in that business or aren't selling a coat, then refusing to sell one to anyone would be inaction/normalcy. But if you are in the business or are selling a coat and that someone has otherwise the ability to meet your requirements, in that case, not selling is action/deviation. As for the morality of it, I do not really think I'm arguing morality- I'm arguing culpability for actions you take. But if I must make a morality measurement, if you aren't already selling a coat, then it's more immoral to steal a coat from someone. If you are selling coats and refuse to sell to someone for whatever reason, it is about the same as stealing the coat.
The parent is the "informed idiot". The case he was talking about is well documented. The reported wanted to include statements detrimental to monsanto and GM feed going into milk being produced locally. The local station told them to cut that out and present the story without it. The reported didn't and were fired. The reporters attempted to file a claim under the whistle blower protection laws and lost.
How not presenting details turns into lieing probably has more to do with his interpretation (lies) then anything.
You need to sit down with your constitutional law professor and ask him why he's stealing money from you. No, I'm being serious, because you certainly aren't learning anything from it.
Actually, it's not in violation of the establishment clause. A violation would be it being required for some degree or attendance not relating to the rest of the courses. Religious schools can and do take public funding every day.
As for the personal views, some people are somewhat locked into university resources when they pay to stay in the dorms or a frat house. Those people do not lose any rights when they do that.
No, there is no strawman here. The situation is the same, if a cop doesn't turn the camera on, all the evidence and everything else will not magically disappear, the case will not be dismissed and it doesn't automagically allow the defense to insinuate something without evidence outside the act to support it. The OJ trial had plenty of evidence showing a pattern of cover ups and misbehavior and even that the lead detective was a racist (in appearance at least). None of that was due to some evidence missing. None of that was due to clerical errors, those things existed in real life outside of the OJ case which is why it was allowed in to show a pattern supporting the claims about the evidence of the case. Without that outside supporting evidence, the claim couldn't be made..
You can't be this stupid can you? Selling something in the first place is doing something. It's the deviation from normal that is the point. Fuck dude, I don't know how to make it more clear without a crayon and paper to draw you a fucking picture. There is nothing obtuse about this.
Wordplay must not be irrelevant. You are certainly spending as much time as possible on it while pretending it somehow helps your case. All it is really doing is showing how little we should trust your judgement.
Are there not laws making things illegal in this society? Is it still called or considered free? The mere fact that you say we live in a free society means you are wrong on this because the laws already exist and they have existed in some cases, longer then you have been alive. The law, the case for it, all that has already been presented and accepted when they were made into law. It's a done deal.The only one supposing a change to the law as it exists is you in fighting for what you think is your right to take advantage of an emergency to gank massive profits that you otherwise would not be able to gain. I've made my case extremely well, your inability to understand it, or even the concept of normal and the deviation from it doesn't change that. Perhaps you can post an address and I'll have my 5 year old draw you a picture and send it to you. Maybe then you will understand. Then again, maybe your greed is too powerful.
They won't get your point. I'm not sure it is even valid. Romney talked past to many people in trying to get his message out and treated the targets of it as if they were smarter and more in the know then they were. That was Romney's biggest failure of the campaigns. Your portrayal of the contraception and legitimate rape definition is proof of that. They didn't make those an issue, they made statements on the concepts of them (big government, abortion) and others made it an issue.
But they lost by 2%. A 2% loss does not indicate the need to throw everything out and start over. Especially when that means it worked to gain the 98% of voted needed to win the white house. Neither party is trying to convince 100% of the populous to vote for them, they are working for 51% or better.
You do not know the GOP doesn't support the copyright reform indicated by the other memo. All this memo says is that the other had not been properly processed through the review of the comity and that step was important.
Anything outside of that is completely in your mind at this point. The article submission doesn't make it clear where the memo stops and the submitter's opinion starts but it's clear if you follow the link to the story.
I know why you posted that as AC. It is because you are too ashamed to take credit for it because it contradicts itself. Two previous bankruptcies in the past ten year and on the third is no where near profitable. Those are your words, I pointed to the problem with them.
And if those people worked for free, it would have covered what, 30 yearly salaries of union workers without benefits? Lets pad it a bit and say 60 worker's salaries. 60 out of 18,000- A nice bitching point when your mad, but a pretty pointless point to complain about what someone else is making for a living when the scale is so huge.
I doubt you could. The problem with hostess is that they needed to downsize and diversify and the employees wouldn't allow that. You can have the best management in the world and get crapped out by a Union hell bent on taking.
Don't yank his internet access just to prove a point.
You will be when you use that artificial muscle to do what you do on that computer. Your grandmother still won't go near a computer after she came over to check on you that one day school got out early.
Well, it does until you start asking who and why. :Like who are you paying and why do they need to you pay it.
No one, absolutely no one, has specified what the payments would actually do to fix AGW. If we had an international team of scientists, engineers, economists, and entrepreneurs who's sole purpose was to mitigate the effects of AGW, by creating economical processes emitting less carbon or even eliminating it altogether, sequestering systems of the same, ways to protect adversely impacted areas and so on, we might have a plan. But paying someone just because someone needs to pay is one of those games no one plays after the buy it.