Please enlighten us on why they are more ans not les corrupt than congres. I have read their recent decisions and think the GP is correct. SCOTUS is less corrupt than congres in appearance if not practice.
But here is a hibt, wherher you like or dislike a decision or fail to grasp the reasoning does not mean corruption.
That's probably true unless you are the subject of the comments, someone who loves and cares for the subject, or a victom of rape who feared similar comments elsewhere and nobody did a damn thing because it was made by immature and weak people until after they or someone else tried to proce they weren't .
To them, its a threat to their life, their safety, their reputation or the same to someone who cares for them. It can be reliving the nightmares they experienced too.
And talking about it, talking about making it public and what happened to the weak and immature people gives pause to other weak and immature people who might think nothing can happen when they think its funny to act the same.
But more interestingly is a lesson to ALL that you may think you are anonymous but you likely already left a trail to your real identity or will eventually. Even if you do not try to piss someone off, you might still be identifyable by people wanting to do you harm.
I suggest you goto a secobd hand shop and think about taking up golf or baseball then. Its a little more up close and personal but i hear extremely effective. It would likely be theraputic for you too
There once was a senator from mass. Who went out in search for a piece of asd Lucked up and found it But fucked up and drowned it Even that didn't end his ass.
How do you know? Its not like you cannot go through her backup store and see if it happened and it would be her discretion if anything was covrred or not.
It could be likely that one or more of the employees where account holders. But i agree, the DC has about as much right to snoop through your data as your landlord has to wiretap your phone or rummage through you closets and sock drawer just becsuse it is on his property.
That doesn't make a hill of brans anyways. The answer is US law does not matter in canada unless a treaty makes it matter or a US citizen in US jurisdiction is involved in violating a US law. And the later is only to the extent the US can convince Canada to enforce a warrant or extradite someone to the US or otherwise lawfully brkng the people or companies into US jurisdiction (nab them at the airport or something).
The reason it was brought up is because organized democrate trolls were marshalled to trash the republicans online in an attemp to manipulate sentiment against them in the event of a shutdown of DHS over defunding Obama's executive action on immigration. We see it rise up here every time the republicans seem to be getting into a standoff with Obama. I suspect they haven't quite called the dogs off because of israel's priminister speaking to congress without asking Obama first.
They will try to use anything even if it is absurd because it advances the narritive that X is evil. Soundbytes sell ideas even if they cannot sell products. This can be seen in the recent Oracle story where they insisted the corupt governor involved was a DINO and really a republican.
That was somewhat my thought. Some gravitational anomally that has bent light representing of as being in an area other than its real location giving the appearance of old-young.
Or perhaps there are more than one way for the heavier metals to form or our understanding is flawed. Its not like we can easily recreate the process we think is behind this.
I'm not sure why the aren't building the tidal pools on land anyways. Find low lands, dredge it, run a pipe iut into the ocean and build condos around new lagoon.
Great. Now that we know you can look stuff up, and assuming there is not a comprehension problem hiding within you, where in law does it give this person the powers in question?
You did see the parts about granted by law and the provisions of this act right? Of course you did and since you posted the declared purpose, i'm sure you will be able to post the provisions in law allowing it.
Lol.. i bet your teacher marked you down for not following directions quite a bit. Not only doed you logical fallacy (appeal to authority) miss the point, your hatred for christians seems to make you think christians is all religions and therefore _all_religious_websites_.
You have heard or heard of christians claiming either their god or the devil made it appear that way though. If you haven't, you haven't been paying attention.
No, there is not. For everyone you think there is, any religion can simply claim it was created that way or the supernatural will of some supernatural being and you have absolutely no way to factually test or refute that. Note, unless it is a matter of some religion saying X and the sites saying Y, any injection of your beliefs is only your opinion not fact. Now this does not mean any religion it true, its just that you have no factual basis to say it is not.
Eh.. wont work. They will just tag you as the dork with the hot chick for easy reference to find the hot chick to show thier buddies. You will eventually have to list it as an alias if ever investigated for antthing.
That likely could have been stopped before poland was even invaded had the allies from WWI enforced the provisions of the versailes treaty and did something when germany remilitarized the rhine.
But yes,we often forget that Russis was aiding germany at the start of WWII.
Its interesting that you brought up the foreing aid aspect of military spending. Its also world security as most of Europe has demonstrated through history that whenever they have large armies, they tend to use them against each other. But your point is proven recently as Itally made a few threats against ISIS and had to walk them back when they realized ISIS forces outnumbered their own troop strength significantly. While not a permenant problem, it shows how little concern they had for their national protection because of the strength of allies.
There is not a mountain of facts that show religios rrvelations to be false. And you are the one being intelectually dishonest here.
In order to say one is not true, you have to posit something that is and prove it which cannot be done factually. You can state your beliefs but that is your opinion not fact. You can pretend science overrules religion but that again is your opinion not fact. Science cannot test the supernatural, at best it can say it isn't neccessary but it cannot even rule out the findings are not the results of the supernatural event/process.
But more importantly, you cannot paint all religious websites as the same. Lexicons for instance focus on the origin or words and accepted translated meanings given the time and manner used. That certainly can be factual. Online searchable bibles like bible gateway gives exact passages from a number of different bibles and translations. That certainly it factual.
Well it is true, you can even read about its creation or question its creator directly.
Or was you trying to be faceatious and your knee jerked so hard it hit you in the head and lowered your IQ to the point you think one specific example is all possible examples as was stated?
Well, maybe you are a true believer or is it posdible you are just a manga fan with a fetish for tenacle monsters?
You are not envisioning a fact based result but a "your opinion" based result. Not really what is discussed here. Fox News for instance, gets more facts right then wrong even though they are selected to shill for the republicans. You have no facts stating that _ALL_religious_websites are wrong.
Not in science. A fact is an observation or evidence that has been repeatedly observed to be true. It doesn't mean always true or only true.
The problem is when existing theories compete. OR more precisely points within large theories compete. Take relativity for instance, gravitational waves help explain the big bang but not all observations support the big bang model. But gravitational waves are considered fact for the purpose of the theory even though it has never been directly observed because it can be explained in mathematical computations that explain observations.
So what happens when we actually detect them for real and they operate slightly different than we think? Does this new observation or fact get pushed to the front of the line or is it buried because the fact engine hasn't updated yet or the wikipedia article it is referencing is in a mod battle. How about if something else is found to explain the theory concerning gravitational waves but lives in the same limbo as gravitational waves in which it hasn't been directly observed but can explain observations with math also.
It reminds me in the 80's when (and I forget who) some doctor was claiming most stomach ulcers were the result of bacteria. Turns out that is a fact but he was originally ridiculed because the fact at the time was that no one believed that bacteria could survive in the stomach's acidic environment longer than it takes to pass through it. Now the fact is that it's cheaper to just giving a couple antibiotics and seeing if the ulcer disappears than to test if the ulcer is bacteria related or other. But it was indisputable at one time, then someone disputed it and now it is indisputable again. Facts change.
He did_not_say hell existed. He said might exist. Go ahead and go back and read it. His exact words was
there might be a hell
As I said, this is as much a religious argument as it is a scientific argument. All it is doing is asking if someone is concerned there might be consequences for actions.
If he said this guy was going to hell, or hell has a special place for him or similar, I can agree with you. But he did not say that and words impart thoughts which we can understand by the use of the words involved and might does not in any way signify there is, it only acknowledges that some think there is.
Oh, you are serious. Well, that was my first thought too. Either a laser weapon or a small particle of something (meteorite) smashed through it causing a catastrophic failure..
It's interesting that he declares something is good for a country without qualifying it. What he means is it is good for the idealized country he wants which is the same as putting your idealism above what is good for the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Please enlighten us on why they are more ans not les corrupt than congres. I have read their recent decisions and think the GP is correct. SCOTUS is less corrupt than congres in appearance if not practice.
But here is a hibt, wherher you like or dislike a decision or fail to grasp the reasoning does not mean corruption.
That's probably true unless you are the subject of the comments, someone who loves and cares for the subject, or a victom of rape who feared similar comments elsewhere and nobody did a damn thing because it was made by immature and weak people until after they or someone else tried to proce they weren't .
To them, its a threat to their life, their safety, their reputation or the same to someone who cares for them. It can be reliving the nightmares they experienced too.
And talking about it, talking about making it public and what happened to the weak and immature people gives pause to other weak and immature people who might think nothing can happen when they think its funny to act the same.
But more interestingly is a lesson to ALL that you may think you are anonymous but you likely already left a trail to your real identity or will eventually. Even if you do not try to piss someone off, you might still be identifyable by people wanting to do you harm.
I suggest you goto a secobd hand shop and think about taking up golf or baseball then. Its a little more up close and personal but i hear extremely effective. It would likely be theraputic for you too
There once was a senator from mass.
Who went out in search for a piece of asd
Lucked up and found it
But fucked up and drowned it
Even that didn't end his ass.
How do you know? Its not like you cannot go through her backup store and see if it happened and it would be her discretion if anything was covrred or not.
It could be likely that one or more of the employees where account holders. But i agree, the DC has about as much right to snoop through your data as your landlord has to wiretap your phone or rummage through you closets and sock drawer just becsuse it is on his property.
That doesn't make a hill of brans anyways. The answer is US law does not matter in canada unless a treaty makes it matter or a US citizen in US jurisdiction is involved in violating a US law. And the later is only to the extent the US can convince Canada to enforce a warrant or extradite someone to the US or otherwise lawfully brkng the people or companies into US jurisdiction (nab them at the airport or something).
The reason it was brought up is because organized democrate trolls were marshalled to trash the republicans online in an attemp to manipulate sentiment against them in the event of a shutdown of DHS over defunding Obama's executive action on immigration. We see it rise up here every time the republicans seem to be getting into a standoff with Obama. I suspect they haven't quite called the dogs off because of israel's priminister speaking to congress without asking Obama first.
They will try to use anything even if it is absurd because it advances the narritive that X is evil. Soundbytes sell ideas even if they cannot sell products. This can be seen in the recent Oracle story where they insisted the corupt governor involved was a DINO and really a republican.
That was somewhat my thought. Some gravitational anomally that has bent light representing of as being in an area other than its real location giving the appearance of old-young.
Or perhaps there are more than one way for the heavier metals to form or our understanding is flawed. Its not like we can easily recreate the process we think is behind this.
http://www.textfiles.com/sex/E...
Are dolphins fish,
I'm not sure why the aren't building the tidal pools on land anyways. Find low lands, dredge it, run a pipe iut into the ocean and build condos around new lagoon.
Great. Now that we know you can look stuff up, and assuming there is not a comprehension problem hiding within you, where in law does it give this person the powers in question?
You did see the parts about granted by law and the provisions of this act right? Of course you did and since you posted the declared purpose, i'm sure you will be able to post the provisions in law allowing it.
Yes, one like it except for it would actually allow the things being done.
Lol.. i bet your teacher marked you down for not following directions quite a bit. Not only doed you logical fallacy (appeal to authority) miss the point, your hatred for christians seems to make you think christians is all religions and therefore _all_religious_websites_.
Take a deep breath and think before you reply.
You have heard or heard of christians claiming either their god or the devil made it appear that way though. If you haven't, you haven't been paying attention.
No, there is not. For everyone you think there is, any religion can simply claim it was created that way or the supernatural will of some supernatural being and you have absolutely no way to factually test or refute that. Note, unless it is a matter of some religion saying X and the sites saying Y, any injection of your beliefs is only your opinion not fact. Now this does not mean any religion it true, its just that you have no factual basis to say it is not.
You are simply wrong.
Eh.. wont work. They will just tag you as the dork with the hot chick for easy reference to find the hot chick to show thier buddies. You will eventually have to list it as an alias if ever investigated for antthing.
That likely could have been stopped before poland was even invaded had the allies from WWI enforced the provisions of the versailes treaty and did something when germany remilitarized the rhine.
But yes,we often forget that Russis was aiding germany at the start of WWII.
Its interesting that you brought up the foreing aid aspect of military spending. Its also world security as most of Europe has demonstrated through history that whenever they have large armies, they tend to use them against each other. But your point is proven recently as Itally made a few threats against ISIS and had to walk them back when they realized ISIS forces outnumbered their own troop strength significantly. While not a permenant problem, it shows how little concern they had for their national protection because of the strength of allies.
There is not a mountain of facts that show religios rrvelations to be false. And you are the one being intelectually dishonest here.
In order to say one is not true, you have to posit something that is and prove it which cannot be done factually. You can state your beliefs but that is your opinion not fact. You can pretend science overrules religion but that again is your opinion not fact. Science cannot test the supernatural, at best it can say it isn't neccessary but it cannot even rule out the findings are not the results of the supernatural event/process.
But more importantly, you cannot paint all religious websites as the same. Lexicons for instance focus on the origin or words and accepted translated meanings given the time and manner used. That certainly can be factual. Online searchable bibles like bible gateway gives exact passages from a number of different bibles and translations. That certainly it factual.
Well it is true, you can even read about its creation or question its creator directly.
Or was you trying to be faceatious and your knee jerked so hard it hit you in the head and lowered your IQ to the point you think one specific example is all possible examples as was stated?
Well, maybe you are a true believer or is it posdible you are just a manga fan with a fetish for tenacle monsters?
You are not envisioning a fact based result but a "your opinion" based result. Not really what is discussed here. Fox News for instance, gets more facts right then wrong even though they are selected to shill for the republicans. You have no facts stating that _ALL_religious_websites are wrong.
Not in science. A fact is an observation or evidence that has been repeatedly observed to be true. It doesn't mean always true or only true.
The problem is when existing theories compete. OR more precisely points within large theories compete. Take relativity for instance, gravitational waves help explain the big bang but not all observations support the big bang model. But gravitational waves are considered fact for the purpose of the theory even though it has never been directly observed because it can be explained in mathematical computations that explain observations.
So what happens when we actually detect them for real and they operate slightly different than we think? Does this new observation or fact get pushed to the front of the line or is it buried because the fact engine hasn't updated yet or the wikipedia article it is referencing is in a mod battle. How about if something else is found to explain the theory concerning gravitational waves but lives in the same limbo as gravitational waves in which it hasn't been directly observed but can explain observations with math also.
It reminds me in the 80's when (and I forget who) some doctor was claiming most stomach ulcers were the result of bacteria. Turns out that is a fact but he was originally ridiculed because the fact at the time was that no one believed that bacteria could survive in the stomach's acidic environment longer than it takes to pass through it. Now the fact is that it's cheaper to just giving a couple antibiotics and seeing if the ulcer disappears than to test if the ulcer is bacteria related or other. But it was indisputable at one time, then someone disputed it and now it is indisputable again. Facts change.
He did_not_say hell existed. He said might exist. Go ahead and go back and read it. His exact words was
As I said, this is as much a religious argument as it is a scientific argument. All it is doing is asking if someone is concerned there might be consequences for actions.
If he said this guy was going to hell, or hell has a special place for him or similar, I can agree with you. But he did not say that and words impart thoughts which we can understand by the use of the words involved and might does not in any way signify there is, it only acknowledges that some think there is.
I doubt that, there are no sharks in space.
Oh, you are serious. Well, that was my first thought too. Either a laser weapon or a small particle of something (meteorite) smashed through it causing a catastrophic failure..
It's interesting that he declares something is good for a country without qualifying it. What he means is it is good for the idealized country he wants which is the same as putting your idealism above what is good for the country.