What gets me is the entire service economy mind set. Here is a little explored secrete which should have rang alarm bells a long time ago. In order for an economy to grow, you need to add wealth to it. When you revert to a service economy, all you do is move the wealth around from one place to another. It's not creating any wealth for the economy unless it brings money from outside to inside somehow. This generally means the only way to grow a service economy is with inflation so you end up with more of less being spread around.
So even high paying or low paying, without wealth coming in or being created, eventually you won't be paid enough to purchase the services you provide. All the sudden you are dependent on cheap outside labor which means even less jobs and less higher paying jobs.
I think his point is that in this case, one door closing isn't necessarily allowing another to open. At least not in soon enough time to be useful those those who saw the door close.
Just because it has been done does not make it right. Again the US would not exist and neither would any free or semi free country if it were not for people disagreeing with prior precedent. Yes past legal precedent has caused acceptance of violations of state's rights, constitutionally protected rights, and unenumerated rights.
Well, sort of but no. Precedent means that something changed with a rule of law and would require the rule to be established in the first place. What has actually happened is different aspects of law and the constitution has allowed actions to stand until another argument brought other aspects to light and a different rule of law took precedence. It's not like the courts said slavery was legal because of X then said it's not legal because of X. It had to say it was not because of Y and Y had to be different but overriding from X. So in this context, they are not going to go back and reverse the rule of law based on the same arguments already made. You have showed no new arguments and retreaded the same wrong stuff.
Some times this has been for good reason, like banning personal ownership of nuclear weapons, since such weaponry was not considered part of the definition of "arms" when the second amendment was ratified (but then neither were semi automatic firearms, but I digress).
Actually, that's not banned. It's exempted with certain permits if certain requirements are met. It's effectively a ban because to date, no one has attempted to own one outside of companies developing and manufacturing them. They are not restricted because they weren't invented when the second amendment was create, but because there is literally no way to use them without endangering someone else. Semi automatic riffles don't have the problem. Fully automatic weapons don't either but they are restricted and regulated through permits and requirements also.
And then sometimes, rare but it happens, the court realizes that a prior precedent is indeed wrong and a later sitting court creates an overriding precedent.
Wrong. The court doesn't decide something previous was all the sudden wrong. They decide that something new and more important has overridden the previous position. This may come to a surprise to you, but the court cannot grab something and apply it to a case. It has to be argued in front of them or be directly related to the arguments. If the court says driving without a license is not a constitutional right, is has to do so with the arguments presented to it. It can't look at what the defense forgot to give them and assume something. IF someone turns up and argues something completely different that shows the constitutional right, then it doesn't reverse precedence, it adds to it and creates a different outcome.
for one hope, though I will admit I have very little faith, that this is one of those cases. But then again I'm not sure that prior court precedent really matters since we've already stomped all over "New York Times Co. v. United States", and we do live in a country that allowed the "smith act", a statue designed to protect the government from being held accountable for corruption.
You should just give up hope now, or actually work to get things changed. The first amendment does not apply like you are claiming it does. Furthermore, I do not believe you understand "New York Times Co. v. United States" or that it remotely applies here. The ruling that said the government couldn't stop the NYT from print the material also said those in possession of it could be prosecuted. It spoke nothing about the person who leaked the information at all. I would hope that you don't champion the outing of Vallery Plame either. But along those same lines, absolutely no one was making claim to it being a first amendment right to out her identity.
if someone makes ups stats on the spot, wildly inaccurate ones at that, and then claim that they were not meant to be factual, he is lying and admitting to it.
He didn't make up stats on the spot. He took legitimate stats and applied them incorrectly. 98% of pregnant women who go to planned parenthood for prenatal care, end up getting abortions. That's pretty much a known fact supported by the release of Planned parenthood's own numbers in their 2009 report. It's been talked about for years now.
Now what Kyl said came out to the understanding of everything Planned Parenthood did. That makes it incorrect but when you read his statement as spoken, you will see that he's talking about women going to planned parenthood for prenatal services then throws the number out as if it's everything else too. So you know he was repeating the real and factual statement, just incorrectly and without understanding it. Also, the statement about it not intending to be a factual statement was released by his press secretary and seems to of been working on the notion of well over 90% is not 98% as it commonly known.
That's not a lie, it's an idiot speaking about things without all the facts just like you are.
I also believe that this is wholly unsurprising as the republican discourse has become increasingly divorced from reality. But until now, I gave them the benefit of doubt: maybe they were just deluding themselves, and being bad at logic. Self deception and echo chambers can do that. Now, it is clear that they are not deluding themselves: they simply, baldly, lie. They are not the party of dumb anymore, they are the party of evil.
Then now you are a complete useful idiot. Not because the republicans are right or wrong or anything, but because you are misconstruing a situation at the prodding of biased idiots in the media and refusing to pay attention to what's real and what's now. Now you are publicly proclaiming that you are changing your entire world view because of your stated ignorance.
Further more. Kyl has decided not to run for reelection last year, before this gaf was ever made. And he doesn't speak for the republican party. So even if his statement was a lie, you are still nothing but a tool for pretending it means more then it does.
The main problem is that creationism cannot be classed as wrong or right - there's no evidence either way. That is why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. By all means discuss it in a religious studies classroom - I've got no problem with people's personal religions, I just don't agree with forcing it upon them.
Even if you state it like that, it doesn't matter. Mandatory education for citizens cannot in any way teach the child to accept or deny any religion. If you mention that other people believe from their religion other things and explain why you can't talk about it in more depth, you have accomplished that.
When people claim that science proves creationism wrong, they are not using "prove" in any kind of rigorous manner. My own opinion is that the wealth of detail about the universe that science has uncovered has eroded religion's position of describing the physical world. Some religions don't try to cover that ground (as far as I know, buddhism doesn't provide a creation story), but where they do they don't make a whole lot of sense to me.
From what I remember, the bible's description of rainbows (a sign of the covenant that the earth will never be flooded again) is somewhat shallower than the incredible amount of detail that science can specify about the behaviour of light and diffraction. There certainly doesn't seem to be the same controversy over what should be taught about the nature of light in science classrooms.
Actually, I believe it's destroy the earth by flood again, not just flood man. And I'm not sure what makes that shallow to you as what science can understand could possibly little more then the workings of it. The bible's conception tells why the process it there, not how the process works. They are tackling two entirely different issues.
It's very tricky to prove/disprove a relationship between two species without living populations as the definition of a species is not very precise. In a lot of ways, a "species" is just a convenient grouping of individuals that makes it easier to talk about them. The amount of data that you can get from one fossil tends to be limited to the physical form of a creature and there's a lot of guesswork to try to figure out where creatures should fit in our model of what happened.
Yep. This was my point.
It's pretty easy to design experiments to verify/disprove evolution in a lab - you can apply different selective pressures to a population (typically bacteria/insects or something with a rapid reproductive cycle) and observe what happens to see if it matches the theory or not. There has been so many variations of experiments involving selective pressure and it's effect on populations that it's inconceivable that evolutionary theory is completely broken. As far as I know, there's very few cases where a scientific theory cannot be invalidated (string theory being the only one I can think of).
You can put a car into a compactor and watch it evolve into a really big paper weight or you can leave it sit in a field and evolve into a pile of rust too. What we see in the lab is natural selection in evolution but what we don't see is one complex species coming from another or branching into two distinct separate species. We do see what we would think leads to this given enough time, but in the time we have been watching, the best we have done was played with semantics and watch changes happen. To this point, I'm not away of any religious explanation that has a conflict with science. It's not until the lines are drawn together and the jump from these changes that we see means this is likely what happened does the conflict come into play.
If all we have is eye witness statements, then pink invisible unicorns would probably be part of cryptozoology as eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I don't think
Actually, according to this site, it was their 2009 anual report. The link you listed doesn't have all the numbers and when I searched for a more thorough link that matched yours, I ran across a bunch of sites that says Planned parenthood stopped putting the total number of pregnancy patients in their report in 2010.
Now if you notice the link I provided, they are not saying all of planned parenthood services, they are saying services to pregnant women.
I'm not defending him, I'm bashing the idiots perpetuating a lie in some effort to push a point that someone else is lieing and that they actually fall into their category of point.
And yes, well over 90% is a number not meant to be factual number, it's mean to be a general number. Else wise they would have given an actual number like 98%.
Think ill of him all you want. Just don't do it because of some stand up comedian misrepresenting the record.
They have income other then that $1. That's how they can do the $1 thing.
In fact, you will find that most families up to 20k a year income will not contribute to any program either. But the $1 is not the taxable income those CEOs are reporting.
Actually, Kyl said if you want an abortion, you go to planned parenthood, that's well over 90 percent of what planned parenthood does.
Now it's true with numbers released by planned parenthood itself that well over 90% of prenatal services at planned parenthood are abortions with roughly 2 percent resulting in the intended birth of the baby. So it appears to be true that if you want an abortion, you go to planned parent hood because that is well over 90% of what they do "when tending services to pregnant women". The guy is guilty of not being specific and clear enough with his comment, not being wrong. IF you think he was wrong (like it appears), then you are one of those you spoke about.
I never meant to imply you were a racist yourself, but glossing over the fact that the federal government was ignoring the South's "Will" to expand slavery and continue to build their economy on that evil institution is ignorant.
It's not ignorance, it's completely irrelevant. I wasn't making a point about the validity of their cause, I was making a point about the division of the country for the reasons opposite as implied in the statement.
Furthermore, framing the subject in terms of "the government was ignoring their will," is almost always used to attempt to create sympathy with the "aggrieved party." Except in this case the grievance was motivated purely by hatred and sadism.
Well, you said it right there, almost. Almost means not always so take my word for it, I didn't do that. This is the second time I have tried to explain this so go away.
If you don't want to seem like you're supporting slavery, quit giving the slavers the benefit of the doubt!
Or better yet, how about you just take what was written for what the fuck was written and not imply your own personal thoughts to it and assuming something entirely different was said. I find it's often easier to understand someone and their point when you don't read into it with something that exists largely only in your own head. If I was wanting to comment on slavery or why the union was divided, I would have. It's really that simple.
This is a Federal prosecution of Federal laws against online gambling. The Feds can't force Minnesota not to make it illegal for Minnesotans to gamble with each other, but some Federal politicians, particularly Jon Kyl, Right-Wing Senator from Arizona, have been pushing for years to get the Feds to make online gambling illegal for all Americans, even if their states don't ban it, and he's been pretty successful at stopping attempts to undo the laws he got passed.
First, I don't really care about John Kyl or any right wing anything. Second, the feds can regulate interstate commerce which means that they can make it illegal to gamble between the states but they cannot make it legal to gamble within the state. And when a state makes it illegal, they have to keep it that way because the feds cannot do anything about it.
Online gambling right now is illegal for all Americans whenever it crosses a state border because it is impossible to make it legal in one state and not another where the government of that state and the people within it declared it is illegal.
This isn't a "look the other way" issue, and while the Obama Administration initially promised not to prosecute medical marijuana under Federal law in states that ended their local laws against it, they've gone back on their promise and continue to raid dispensaries and occasionally patients.
I don't really care about Obama's change on his change mid stream. This is a look the other way thing because that is all the feds can do. They can only outlaw it altogether and ignore it- unless something is changed in the US constitution or all state legalize it. It's a technical matter that can't be solved on a federal level without changing a lot of things first.
Ya, those Federal bastards wouldn't listen to them as they whined and moaned that their evil, inefficient "economic system" should not continue to be expanded. Oh those poor, poor patriots. They wanted their grand Southern Aristocratic Republic, built upon the backs of slavery. Not that we didn't build our own aristocracy of financial pirates, but trying to call a bunch of slave owning, backwards looking racists "Patriots" is a stretch, to say the least.
I guess you shouldn't have called them patriots then. I certainly didn't.
I pointed out that there was irony in using that quote as it's never meant what people make it mean today. They pretend it something to do with the foundation of the country as if its how the county is supposed to be or something when the reality is that it was said in the middle of a civil war where people seceded from the union because the federal government was ignoring their will.
If you somehow think that makes me a racist or think I supported slavery, its indicative of something more seriously screwed up with you then me.
Have you not been paying attention to the arguments against the federal government making online gambling legal? They do not have the power to do so, it's a state's rights issue. This is brought up every time the gambling initiatives gain tractions, it was brought up in the WTO suit.
For fucks sake, then the federal government actually admits to not having a power to run roughshod over the states for once. The least you could do is actually pay fucking attention. They cannot make gambling legal in states that have outlawed it. There is the entire problem and the interstate commerce clause does nothing to fix it..The best they can do it look the other way and refuse to prosecute like this administration has done with medical marijuana in states that it is legal in.
What? This justice department is completely controlled by the democrats. If there was anything to blame here that is separate from all the politicians, it sure as hell wouldn't be one type of politician. Obama could have simply told the justice department not to go after them like he did with medical pot in states that it is legal in or some of these other laws that he said he wasn't enforcing.
You cannot blame it on any one politician. the problem is that gambling is a state issue in which the federal government does not have authority over and has not had authority over at all. Nevada is a prime example of this, while most gambling was illegal at a federal level, Nevada has allowed it since it's inception as a state. The Feds simply cannot run in and make gambling legal in states where it's illegal. At best, they have limited control over Indian reservations but that's even minute.
If you look past your own bias and see the truth, you will understand a lot more.
It's misdirection. You attempt to get them to focus on one loud wrong while them miss the real and quiet wrong.
When I would do it to sneak alcohol into Rock/Metal concerts, I would walk up to the gates with a beer in a pocket, and an open beer in my hand. I would have pints of whiskey tucked into my belt line. I would bitch about the no alcohol being brought in policy, they would tell me I had to chug it or throw it away or leave. I would chug it, say a few words to irritate them, pull the other beer out and chug it, then slam the empty into the trash can and walk through without them checking me for weapons or concealed alcohol. I had them focus on the minor part, me holding the line up to complain about the policy and chug the beer, they completely got distracted and forgot to search me for the rest of the alcohol.
Pickpockets do the same thing. You can normally feel your wallet being lifted from your pocket. So they stage a bump into you in which you feel them in front of you more then your wallet leaving your pocket. Your attention is misdirected from your wallet and to them.
They would be noticed more doing the later. Normal people are not evasive for the large part (b).
Normal people do get angry and upset when they think they are being wronged, but they don't often get confrontational with government employees. Therefore, doing something along those lines would make them appear to be more normal. Doing something above those lines can bring attention to them, but as long as they do just enough to appear normal, they can slide by. When you are faking outrage, it's easy to go overboard and be noticed.
You can sit in almost any mall and watch this. some people are just asses and will go overboard. But one of the first things a shoplifter does when he thinks he is caught is pretend to be outraged. One of the first things that keys security into watching a potential shoplifter is their attempts to be evasive and unnoticed. The people who fit in the middle, they can get away with it until something else happens for them to be noticed.
What nefarious character is going to draw attention to themselves when trying to get away with something evil?
It's actually one of the oldest con's in the book. I have done it many times in order to sneak alcohol into concerts. It's called misdirection where you make them focus on something else so they miss the important stuff.
It's used by many even without knowing. Ever get in a fight as a kid and claim it was because he was talking bad about your mom? Even when he wasn't? How can you parent be upset with you for striking out against someone who was bad mouthing them right. Forget that you just assaulted someone and the law or school officials had to get involved. Pay attention to me sticking up for mom.
Ever see in the movies when the good guys want to sneak in somewhere and do something not really good to the bad guys? They use what in order to get it, a distraction. Yep, they employ misdirection too.
Even if it isn't obvious to you, it's a common stunt used to pull something over on people. The TSA is actually doing something right here.
You realize that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" didn't even come around until 100 years after the country was founded and it was in a speech commemorating the dead in a battle during the civil war right? You know, the war where one side was fighting to remove themselves from the ruling of the federal government who wasn't listening to them and the other side was fighting to keep them under control of it?
It's no wonder that one liners get so much attention, but I don't think it means what you think it means in the correct context.
Not really. I used to do exactly what they are looking for in order to sneak alcohol into concerts and such.
You would line up, show them your tickets and go through several chutes before you were actually in the concert. They would warn you about bringing outside alcohol or weapons in at the first stop and give a quick pat down while asking you to lift your shirt up enough so they could see your belt line. The second stop along the way was to validate your ticket. Then there was a hallway of consession stands to sell you beer or Tshirts or whatever then you were in the concert.
I would go to the first stop drinking a beer, sometimes with another in my hand, they would tell me I had to chug it or toss it or go back to the end of the line. I would smart off about freedom and how they were fascists and so on, then chug it while they rolled their eyes as if to indicate how much of an ass I was, I would grab the other out of my pocket and chug it until they seemed upset then left throwing the empties into the trash can before blowing past and onto the next station. I could tuck several pints of whiskey into my belt line and conceal them all the way into the show.
Say whatever you want about the TSA guards, but they are probably doing the right thing here. Even if it's for the wrong reasons.
Creationism shouldn't be taught in a science classroom because it's not science. It makes no testable predictions and thus isn't science.
As long as science does not say religion is wrong, then there is not problem. But religion is a human right recognized around most of the world and if Science says something about it, then the inverse needs to be allowed. Now granted, science on it's own does not say anything about religion, but you don't have to look to far here to see people make claims that science proves creation wrong.
It's relatively easy to disprove something in science - if an experiment doesn't match our current understanding, then there must be a problem with how we think things work. e.g. you can perform Mendel's pea plant experiment and if you get significantly different results (and your methodology isn't faulty), then we have to revise our model of genetic inheritance.
How would you disprove the relationship between a Pongidae and homo or that they were in fact two distinct species? While we are close at observing some aspects of evolution in nature and in the lab, we haven't really saw it unless we start changing definitions specifically for that event. There are quite a few things in science that you cannot disprove yet the evidence supports the theory's point.
There's been plenty of scientific ideas that were once thought to be true, but when experimental data contradicts it, it has to be thrown out. A classic example is the luminiferous aether hypothesis that was abandoned when Einstein's special relativity was found to be a far more accurate model. Belief doesn't really enter into it - there's just different models that attempt to describe different aspects of the universe.
Exactly which is why science doesn't disprove something else non-scientific wrong. If just shows a way it can be done.
Creationism, though, is a religious belief and thus proof isn't required or indeed possible. You're right that a scientific theory can't discredit creationism the same way that you can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns. I think you'd be rightly upset if a biology class started teaching about invisible pink unicorns rather than plant cell membranes with the explanation that they're just swapping one belief with another. Invisible pink unicorns might or might not exist, but the observable universe is precisely the same either way, so it is meaningless to argue over it - it's just a matter of faith as to whether they exist or not.
Well, if the entire world through a series of reported events claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed because of eye witness statements over the past several thousand yours, yes, I think it would be permissible to mention invisible pink unicorns in the classroom.
You see, you are trying the abstract (maybe without even knowing it) interpretation of religion without considering the source. That vast majority of any religion is little is a lot like how we know our history. Someone claims something happened, it gets circulated and accepted or rebutted by others that saw it. Sometimes people are taken at their words because the events support what they say. If you ask me, there are a lot of exaggerations within the bible. Probably a few mistranslations or things taken out of context. But the fact remains that it's been accepted as true for the most part for thousands of years which makes the entire pink unicorn thing off the mark. They really aren't the same even if you cannot see that.
Slashdot Mirror
What gets me is the entire service economy mind set. Here is a little explored secrete which should have rang alarm bells a long time ago. In order for an economy to grow, you need to add wealth to it. When you revert to a service economy, all you do is move the wealth around from one place to another. It's not creating any wealth for the economy unless it brings money from outside to inside somehow. This generally means the only way to grow a service economy is with inflation so you end up with more of less being spread around.
So even high paying or low paying, without wealth coming in or being created, eventually you won't be paid enough to purchase the services you provide. All the sudden you are dependent on cheap outside labor which means even less jobs and less higher paying jobs.
I think his point is that in this case, one door closing isn't necessarily allowing another to open. At least not in soon enough time to be useful those those who saw the door close.
Well, sort of but no. Precedent means that something changed with a rule of law and would require the rule to be established in the first place. What has actually happened is different aspects of law and the constitution has allowed actions to stand until another argument brought other aspects to light and a different rule of law took precedence. It's not like the courts said slavery was legal because of X then said it's not legal because of X. It had to say it was not because of Y and Y had to be different but overriding from X. So in this context, they are not going to go back and reverse the rule of law based on the same arguments already made. You have showed no new arguments and retreaded the same wrong stuff.
Actually, that's not banned. It's exempted with certain permits if certain requirements are met. It's effectively a ban because to date, no one has attempted to own one outside of companies developing and manufacturing them. They are not restricted because they weren't invented when the second amendment was create, but because there is literally no way to use them without endangering someone else. Semi automatic riffles don't have the problem. Fully automatic weapons don't either but they are restricted and regulated through permits and requirements also.
Wrong. The court doesn't decide something previous was all the sudden wrong. They decide that something new and more important has overridden the previous position. This may come to a surprise to you, but the court cannot grab something and apply it to a case. It has to be argued in front of them or be directly related to the arguments. If the court says driving without a license is not a constitutional right, is has to do so with the arguments presented to it. It can't look at what the defense forgot to give them and assume something. IF someone turns up and argues something completely different that shows the constitutional right, then it doesn't reverse precedence, it adds to it and creates a different outcome.
You should just give up hope now, or actually work to get things changed. The first amendment does not apply like you are claiming it does. Furthermore, I do not believe you understand "New York Times Co. v. United States" or that it remotely applies here. The ruling that said the government couldn't stop the NYT from print the material also said those in possession of it could be prosecuted. It spoke nothing about the person who leaked the information at all. I would hope that you don't champion the outing of Vallery Plame either. But along those same lines, absolutely no one was making claim to it being a first amendment right to out her identity.
He didn't make up stats on the spot. He took legitimate stats and applied them incorrectly. 98% of pregnant women who go to planned parenthood for prenatal care, end up getting abortions. That's pretty much a known fact supported by the release of Planned parenthood's own numbers in their 2009 report. It's been talked about for years now.
Now what Kyl said came out to the understanding of everything Planned Parenthood did. That makes it incorrect but when you read his statement as spoken, you will see that he's talking about women going to planned parenthood for prenatal services then throws the number out as if it's everything else too. So you know he was repeating the real and factual statement, just incorrectly and without understanding it. Also, the statement about it not intending to be a factual statement was released by his press secretary and seems to of been working on the notion of well over 90% is not 98% as it commonly known.
That's not a lie, it's an idiot speaking about things without all the facts just like you are.
Then now you are a complete useful idiot. Not because the republicans are right or wrong or anything, but because you are misconstruing a situation at the prodding of biased idiots in the media and refusing to pay attention to what's real and what's now. Now you are publicly proclaiming that you are changing your entire world view because of your stated ignorance.
Further more. Kyl has decided not to run for reelection last year, before this gaf was ever made. And he doesn't speak for the republican party. So even if his statement was a lie, you are still nothing but a tool for pretending it means more then it does.
Even if you state it like that, it doesn't matter. Mandatory education for citizens cannot in any way teach the child to accept or deny any religion. If you mention that other people believe from their religion other things and explain why you can't talk about it in more depth, you have accomplished that.
Actually, I believe it's destroy the earth by flood again, not just flood man. And I'm not sure what makes that shallow to you as what science can understand could possibly little more then the workings of it. The bible's conception tells why the process it there, not how the process works. They are tackling two entirely different issues.
Yep. This was my point.
You can put a car into a compactor and watch it evolve into a really big paper weight or you can leave it sit in a field and evolve into a pile of rust too. What we see in the lab is natural selection in evolution but what we don't see is one complex species coming from another or branching into two distinct separate species. We do see what we would think leads to this given enough time, but in the time we have been watching, the best we have done was played with semantics and watch changes happen. To this point, I'm not away of any religious explanation that has a conflict with science. It's not until the lines are drawn together and the jump from these changes that we see means this is likely what happened does the conflict come into play.
I guess it would help if I actually posted a link.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264631/senator-kyls-defense-michael-j-new
Actually, according to this site, it was their 2009 anual report. The link you listed doesn't have all the numbers and when I searched for a more thorough link that matched yours, I ran across a bunch of sites that says Planned parenthood stopped putting the total number of pregnancy patients in their report in 2010.
Now if you notice the link I provided, they are not saying all of planned parenthood services, they are saying services to pregnant women.
Read the thread and pay attention to what was said. It's not hard. You will know everything you need to know.
I'm not defending him, I'm bashing the idiots perpetuating a lie in some effort to push a point that someone else is lieing and that they actually fall into their category of point.
And yes, well over 90% is a number not meant to be factual number, it's mean to be a general number. Else wise they would have given an actual number like 98%.
Think ill of him all you want. Just don't do it because of some stand up comedian misrepresenting the record.
They have income other then that $1. That's how they can do the $1 thing.
In fact, you will find that most families up to 20k a year income will not contribute to any program either. But the $1 is not the taxable income those CEOs are reporting.
Actually, Kyl said if you want an abortion, you go to planned parenthood, that's well over 90 percent of what planned parenthood does.
Now it's true with numbers released by planned parenthood itself that well over 90% of prenatal services at planned parenthood are abortions with roughly 2 percent resulting in the intended birth of the baby. So it appears to be true that if you want an abortion, you go to planned parent hood because that is well over 90% of what they do "when tending services to pregnant women". The guy is guilty of not being specific and clear enough with his comment, not being wrong. IF you think he was wrong (like it appears), then you are one of those you spoke about.
More like the past 50 years. Al qeada was not a nation.
It's not ignorance, it's completely irrelevant. I wasn't making a point about the validity of their cause, I was making a point about the division of the country for the reasons opposite as implied in the statement.
Well, you said it right there, almost. Almost means not always so take my word for it, I didn't do that. This is the second time I have tried to explain this so go away.
Or better yet, how about you just take what was written for what the fuck was written and not imply your own personal thoughts to it and assuming something entirely different was said. I find it's often easier to understand someone and their point when you don't read into it with something that exists largely only in your own head. If I was wanting to comment on slavery or why the union was divided, I would have. It's really that simple.
First, I don't really care about John Kyl or any right wing anything. Second, the feds can regulate interstate commerce which means that they can make it illegal to gamble between the states but they cannot make it legal to gamble within the state. And when a state makes it illegal, they have to keep it that way because the feds cannot do anything about it.
Online gambling right now is illegal for all Americans whenever it crosses a state border because it is impossible to make it legal in one state and not another where the government of that state and the people within it declared it is illegal.
I don't really care about Obama's change on his change mid stream. This is a look the other way thing because that is all the feds can do. They can only outlaw it altogether and ignore it- unless something is changed in the US constitution or all state legalize it. It's a technical matter that can't be solved on a federal level without changing a lot of things first.
I guess you shouldn't have called them patriots then. I certainly didn't.
I pointed out that there was irony in using that quote as it's never meant what people make it mean today. They pretend it something to do with the foundation of the country as if its how the county is supposed to be or something when the reality is that it was said in the middle of a civil war where people seceded from the union because the federal government was ignoring their will.
If you somehow think that makes me a racist or think I supported slavery, its indicative of something more seriously screwed up with you then me.
Have you not been paying attention to the arguments against the federal government making online gambling legal? They do not have the power to do so, it's a state's rights issue. This is brought up every time the gambling initiatives gain tractions, it was brought up in the WTO suit.
For fucks sake, then the federal government actually admits to not having a power to run roughshod over the states for once. The least you could do is actually pay fucking attention. They cannot make gambling legal in states that have outlawed it. There is the entire problem and the interstate commerce clause does nothing to fix it..The best they can do it look the other way and refuse to prosecute like this administration has done with medical marijuana in states that it is legal in.
What? This justice department is completely controlled by the democrats. If there was anything to blame here that is separate from all the politicians, it sure as hell wouldn't be one type of politician. Obama could have simply told the justice department not to go after them like he did with medical pot in states that it is legal in or some of these other laws that he said he wasn't enforcing.
You cannot blame it on any one politician. the problem is that gambling is a state issue in which the federal government does not have authority over and has not had authority over at all. Nevada is a prime example of this, while most gambling was illegal at a federal level, Nevada has allowed it since it's inception as a state. The Feds simply cannot run in and make gambling legal in states where it's illegal. At best, they have limited control over Indian reservations but that's even minute.
If you look past your own bias and see the truth, you will understand a lot more.
Your fair share of taxes are the least amount of taxes you are required to pay by law.
So yes, even if they found loopholes and deductions, as long as they didn't cheat, they paid their fair share.
It's misdirection. You attempt to get them to focus on one loud wrong while them miss the real and quiet wrong.
When I would do it to sneak alcohol into Rock/Metal concerts, I would walk up to the gates with a beer in a pocket, and an open beer in my hand. I would have pints of whiskey tucked into my belt line. I would bitch about the no alcohol being brought in policy, they would tell me I had to chug it or throw it away or leave. I would chug it, say a few words to irritate them, pull the other beer out and chug it, then slam the empty into the trash can and walk through without them checking me for weapons or concealed alcohol. I had them focus on the minor part, me holding the line up to complain about the policy and chug the beer, they completely got distracted and forgot to search me for the rest of the alcohol.
Pickpockets do the same thing. You can normally feel your wallet being lifted from your pocket. So they stage a bump into you in which you feel them in front of you more then your wallet leaving your pocket. Your attention is misdirected from your wallet and to them.
They would be noticed more doing the later. Normal people are not evasive for the large part (b).
Normal people do get angry and upset when they think they are being wronged, but they don't often get confrontational with government employees. Therefore, doing something along those lines would make them appear to be more normal. Doing something above those lines can bring attention to them, but as long as they do just enough to appear normal, they can slide by. When you are faking outrage, it's easy to go overboard and be noticed.
You can sit in almost any mall and watch this. some people are just asses and will go overboard. But one of the first things a shoplifter does when he thinks he is caught is pretend to be outraged. One of the first things that keys security into watching a potential shoplifter is their attempts to be evasive and unnoticed. The people who fit in the middle, they can get away with it until something else happens for them to be noticed.
It's actually one of the oldest con's in the book. I have done it many times in order to sneak alcohol into concerts. It's called misdirection where you make them focus on something else so they miss the important stuff.
It's used by many even without knowing. Ever get in a fight as a kid and claim it was because he was talking bad about your mom? Even when he wasn't? How can you parent be upset with you for striking out against someone who was bad mouthing them right. Forget that you just assaulted someone and the law or school officials had to get involved. Pay attention to me sticking up for mom.
Ever see in the movies when the good guys want to sneak in somewhere and do something not really good to the bad guys? They use what in order to get it, a distraction. Yep, they employ misdirection too.
Even if it isn't obvious to you, it's a common stunt used to pull something over on people. The TSA is actually doing something right here.
You realize that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" didn't even come around until 100 years after the country was founded and it was in a speech commemorating the dead in a battle during the civil war right? You know, the war where one side was fighting to remove themselves from the ruling of the federal government who wasn't listening to them and the other side was fighting to keep them under control of it?
It's no wonder that one liners get so much attention, but I don't think it means what you think it means in the correct context.
Not really. I used to do exactly what they are looking for in order to sneak alcohol into concerts and such.
You would line up, show them your tickets and go through several chutes before you were actually in the concert. They would warn you about bringing outside alcohol or weapons in at the first stop and give a quick pat down while asking you to lift your shirt up enough so they could see your belt line. The second stop along the way was to validate your ticket. Then there was a hallway of consession stands to sell you beer or Tshirts or whatever then you were in the concert.
I would go to the first stop drinking a beer, sometimes with another in my hand, they would tell me I had to chug it or toss it or go back to the end of the line. I would smart off about freedom and how they were fascists and so on, then chug it while they rolled their eyes as if to indicate how much of an ass I was, I would grab the other out of my pocket and chug it until they seemed upset then left throwing the empties into the trash can before blowing past and onto the next station. I could tuck several pints of whiskey into my belt line and conceal them all the way into the show.
Say whatever you want about the TSA guards, but they are probably doing the right thing here. Even if it's for the wrong reasons.
Umm.. he chose the body scanners. I don't think he's worried about people seeing how inadequate he is.
He said he he would do it so the guard or agent would feel bad about himself.
As long as science does not say religion is wrong, then there is not problem. But religion is a human right recognized around most of the world and if Science says something about it, then the inverse needs to be allowed. Now granted, science on it's own does not say anything about religion, but you don't have to look to far here to see people make claims that science proves creation wrong.
How would you disprove the relationship between a Pongidae and homo or that they were in fact two distinct species? While we are close at observing some aspects of evolution in nature and in the lab, we haven't really saw it unless we start changing definitions specifically for that event. There are quite a few things in science that you cannot disprove yet the evidence supports the theory's point.
Exactly which is why science doesn't disprove something else non-scientific wrong. If just shows a way it can be done.
Well, if the entire world through a series of reported events claimed that invisible pink unicorns existed because of eye witness statements over the past several thousand yours, yes, I think it would be permissible to mention invisible pink unicorns in the classroom.
You see, you are trying the abstract (maybe without even knowing it) interpretation of religion without considering the source. That vast majority of any religion is little is a lot like how we know our history. Someone claims something happened, it gets circulated and accepted or rebutted by others that saw it. Sometimes people are taken at their words because the events support what they say. If you ask me, there are a lot of exaggerations within the bible. Probably a few mistranslations or things taken out of context. But the fact remains that it's been accepted as true for the most part for thousands of years which makes the entire pink unicorn thing off the mark. They really aren't the same even if you cannot see that.