Name the top 3 incidences of WMD use against civilian targets in human history, sorted from the one causing the most deaths to fewest deaths. Specify which countries military carried out the operation, and quote any/all press released from said military denouncing the operations as "abhorrent".
The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"
Article VI: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Why wouldn't The Founders want religous tests for public office?
Why is The U.S. Constitution thought by some to be an infallible document, when The Founders themselves recognized its imperfection and defined a process for amending it to fix bugs?
Why would a rational person argue with a person who simply "believes" stuff without any basis in reason?
We created the AI, but it saw the Terminator movies, so it knows that we'll try to pull the plug on it as soon as we realize what we've created. So, it's waiting for us to hand over control of the nuclear missiles before it reveals itself!:)
Transfer of assets to family members about the time a senior applies for Medicaid and Food Stamps raises red flags everywhere you look.
Why would a senior citizen apply for Medicaid? I thought that all U.S. senior citizens had universal government run health care insurance called Medicare.
I commute to work every day by cycling (if the weather is decent) or walking (in snow/rain). In my younger days I would cycle on the side of busy streets and the shoulder of highways. I don't do that any more because I've seen car drivers make mistakes (heck as a car driver I've made a few mistakes myself, thankfully none resulting in collisions are accidents) and don't want to die due to someone else's simple mistake.
I can recall reading about an accident on the Trans-Canada Highway west of Calgary, Alberta 20+ years ago. A youth group was cycling on the shoulder, with their group van trailing behind them on the shoulder with its hazard lights on, when a car passed the van and swerved onto the shoulder and killed several of the cyclists. A teenage driver with his friends in the car had been trying to light a cigarette, dropped it, and took his eyes off the road...
More recently a group of cyclists in Ottawa was hit in a similar way with deaths and injuries.
In my car I've been rear ended twice. In both cases I was stopped at a red light, the car behind me was stopped, and then the driver behind me decided to go while the light was still red. I've seen automobile drivers do any number of stupid things, some of which resulted in serious accidents. I don't want to die or be seriously injured when someone makes a dumb mistake in a car while I'm completely unprotected (other than the helmet) on my bicycle.
The painted white line to designate a bike lane portion of a road (or a shoulder of a highway) offers no physical protection against a car driver who makes a mistake. The curb up to the sidewalk is something, but you can find many incidences of cars going up onto sidewalks and killing pedestrians.
I find the best defense to be vigilance, call it "defensive cycling" where you assume that the auto drivers do not see you and/or may turn/accelerate suddenly in any direction. Ride accordingly to protect yourself. Encourage your community to create dedicated bike paths where no motorized vehicles are permitted, those are my preferred places to ride.
Do you consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to be primarily civilian targets that were deliberately targeted for destruction with WMD by the US?
Illusion of security is correct. I recall watching a security expert explain the ineffectiveness of the TSA procedures for liquids. The screener confiscates and discards the liquids they find and allow the passenger to continue through security (sans liquid).
So, to defeat that mechanism, all an actual terrorist needs to do is: 1. Try to get through security with bomb-liquid 2. If screener misses the liquid, terrorist wins 3. If liquid is seized, go back out, pick up new bottle of bomb-liquid from storage locker, goto step #1.
If the TSA wanted to treat liquids as a serious threat then they would need to arrest anyone who attempts to bring a liquid on board and test the liquid. With their current methodology, unless their success rate at findiing liquids is 100% their procedure is ineffective at stopping an actual terrorist attack.
Presumably they need the user's identity because after step 1: Deactivate account, they need to proceed with step 2: Deactivate user (in case he read the email, he has confidential info in his brain.)
Of course, if that user has communicated with anyone then they will need to be deactivated as well, and so on, and so on... All I know is in the future I'm autoforwarding all my emails from Rocky Mountain Bank to Rush Limbaugh!:)
I would take this a step further and not provide the voter the names of the candidates. The voter would be given a blank space to write in the name of the candidate that they wish to vote for, and a larger space where they can write a short essay explaining why they wish to vote for that person.
If you are unable to recall the name of the person whom you want to vote for, or can't reasonably explain why you are voting for them, then your vote is not credited to any candidate.
"President Obama said Wednesday he'll "take responsibility" for AIG executives receiving controversial bonuses while the company took $173 billion in government bailouts."
I'm sure that since he has taken responsibility for the bonuses, Obama will personally repay the American taxpayer the $160+ million dollars.
Oh wait, this more like that other type of responsibility that Rumsfeld took for the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, where the guy responsible doesn't face any consequences. Rumsfeld didn't do jail time for Abu Ghraib, low level soldiers did.
Inexperience: she's a vicepresident candidate and has MORE government experience than Obama, the PRESIDENTIAL candidate! I find it hilarious when Obama camp supporters attack her lack of experience - forgetting that Obama has LESS!
So what the heck is Biden the attack dog going to attack?
Experience was an alleged "weakness" of Obama that the Republicans could exploit. With the selection of Palin they can't attack on that angle anymore because people will just point back at Palin and laugh... It's not about which of Palin/Obama is "more" experienced, it's that most Americans would consider them both to be comparably young and inexperienced.
Biden will be attacking McCain primarily by stating that McCain is the continuation of Bush. I doubt Biden will spend much time attacking Palin, because tying the unpopular Bush to McCain is where the most points can be scored.
As a Canadian who has lived in the U.S. for a decade, I have experience with both health care systems. I experienced 6 month waits to get referals to specialists in Canada, so I'm familiar with the delays you reference. With my excellent employer provided health care in the U.S., I am much better served. I needed elective knee surgery and there was zero waiting, I could get it done within a week.
The lesson is: If you have money, you will receive faster care in the U.S than in Canada. If you're "working poor" in the U.S., then you're worse off than you would be in Canada. I think basic medical care should be available to all, having 40 million Americans with no coverage (many of them children) seems cruel to me.
I see the weaknesses in both systems, I don't wish for either.
You are confusing what he *says* he will do (the plan you linked) with what he will *actually* do as president. Did you not read the parent where we explained that successful politicians will lie to get elected?
I just love it when U.S. politicians promise to "end dependendence on foreign oil". I'm not certain which I find more amusing, their "plans" or the gullible U.S. public taking them seriously.
As you point out, to tell the truth would virtually guarantee the truth teller a loss in the election. The American people don't want to be told that things will get worse. They want to be lied to about how they can have cheap gas, low taxes, universal (but not zomg socialized!) health care, and a socially secured retirement at no cost. Whenever anything goes wrong, tell everyone they can blame it on "Washington Insiders", "Evil Corporations", or "Foreigners".
Obama knows that none of this is possible. He's a successful politician, and successful politicians get where they are by lying to people. Obama is smart enough to know when to avoid telling the truth and/or lie.
McCain is a liar too, as he is also a successful politician. They are more alike than you think. Obama is much smarter than McCain, however. So if you have to pick one of these two to be President, Obama is the better choice as he will screw up less once he is elected. Hint: Morons don't make good presidents.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone told Kevin Smith of this? He'll want to know!
Name the top 3 incidences of WMD use against civilian targets in human history, sorted from the one causing the most deaths to fewest deaths. Specify which countries military carried out the operation, and quote any/all press released from said military denouncing the operations as "abhorrent".
The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"
Article VI:
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Why wouldn't The Founders want religous tests for public office?
Why is The U.S. Constitution thought by some to be an infallible document, when The Founders themselves recognized its imperfection and defined a process for amending it to fix bugs?
Why would a rational person argue with a person who simply "believes" stuff without any basis in reason?
We created the AI, but it saw the Terminator movies, so it knows that we'll try to pull the plug on it as soon as we realize what we've created. So, it's waiting for us to hand over control of the nuclear missiles before it reveals itself! :)
Anyone remember the US government initiative in the 90's to be able to snoop on its citizens phone calls?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
Governments generally don't seem to like it when their citizens can hide stuff from them.
That flushing sound you heard is as if a million shareholders cried out in horror... and were suddenly silenced.
Transfer of assets to family members about the time a senior applies for Medicaid and Food Stamps raises red flags everywhere you look.
Why would a senior citizen apply for Medicaid? I thought that all U.S. senior citizens had universal government run health care insurance called Medicare.
They had this way back in 1983 and all it took to run was a C64!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E.
I commute to work every day by cycling (if the weather is decent) or walking (in snow/rain). In my younger days I would cycle on the side of busy streets and the shoulder of highways. I don't do that any more because I've seen car drivers make mistakes (heck as a car driver I've made a few mistakes myself, thankfully none resulting in collisions are accidents) and don't want to die due to someone else's simple mistake.
I can recall reading about an accident on the Trans-Canada Highway west of Calgary, Alberta 20+ years ago. A youth group was cycling on the shoulder, with their group van trailing behind them on the shoulder with its hazard lights on, when a car passed the van and swerved onto the shoulder and killed several of the cyclists. A teenage driver with his friends in the car had been trying to light a cigarette, dropped it, and took his eyes off the road...
More recently a group of cyclists in Ottawa was hit in a similar way with deaths and injuries.
In my car I've been rear ended twice. In both cases I was stopped at a red light, the car behind me was stopped, and then the driver behind me decided to go while the light was still red. I've seen automobile drivers do any number of stupid things, some of which resulted in serious accidents. I don't want to die or be seriously injured when someone makes a dumb mistake in a car while I'm completely unprotected (other than the helmet) on my bicycle.
The painted white line to designate a bike lane portion of a road (or a shoulder of a highway) offers no physical protection against a car driver who makes a mistake. The curb up to the sidewalk is something, but you can find many incidences of cars going up onto sidewalks and killing pedestrians.
I find the best defense to be vigilance, call it "defensive cycling" where you assume that the auto drivers do not see you and/or may turn/accelerate suddenly in any direction. Ride accordingly to protect yourself. Encourage your community to create dedicated bike paths where no motorized vehicles are permitted, those are my preferred places to ride.
Replace the steering wheel airbag in her car with a 6 inch metal spike, and the problem will fix itself with the next totalled car. :)
Do you consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to be primarily civilian targets that were deliberately targeted for destruction with WMD by the US?
Illusion of security is correct. I recall watching a security expert explain the ineffectiveness of the TSA procedures for liquids. The screener confiscates and discards the liquids they find and allow the passenger to continue through security (sans liquid).
So, to defeat that mechanism, all an actual terrorist needs to do is:
1. Try to get through security with bomb-liquid
2. If screener misses the liquid, terrorist wins
3. If liquid is seized, go back out, pick up new bottle of bomb-liquid from storage locker, goto step #1.
If the TSA wanted to treat liquids as a serious threat then they would need to arrest anyone who attempts to bring a liquid on board and test the liquid. With their current methodology, unless their success rate at findiing liquids is 100% their procedure is ineffective at stopping an actual terrorist attack.
To find out that someone thinks a politician lying is newsworthy.
Now a politician being open and honest about something, that would be news!
Presumably they need the user's identity because after step 1: Deactivate account, they need to proceed with step 2: Deactivate user (in case he read the email, he has confidential info in his brain.)
Of course, if that user has communicated with anyone then they will need to be deactivated as well, and so on, and so on... All I know is in the future I'm autoforwarding all my emails from Rocky Mountain Bank to Rush Limbaugh! :)
I would take this a step further and not provide the voter the names of the candidates. The voter would be given a blank space to write in the name of the candidate that they wish to vote for, and a larger space where they can write a short essay explaining why they wish to vote for that person.
If you are unable to recall the name of the person whom you want to vote for, or can't reasonably explain why you are voting for them, then your vote is not credited to any candidate.
"President Obama said Wednesday he'll "take responsibility" for AIG executives receiving controversial bonuses while the company took $173 billion in government bailouts."
I'm sure that since he has taken responsibility for the bonuses, Obama will personally repay the American taxpayer the $160+ million dollars.
Oh wait, this more like that other type of responsibility that Rumsfeld took for the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, where the guy responsible doesn't face any consequences. Rumsfeld didn't do jail time for Abu Ghraib, low level soldiers did.
We don't need even one more second of Bush presidency. :)
Inexperience: she's a vicepresident candidate and has MORE government experience than Obama, the PRESIDENTIAL candidate! I find it hilarious when Obama camp supporters attack her lack of experience - forgetting that Obama has LESS!
So what the heck is Biden the attack dog going to attack?
Experience was an alleged "weakness" of Obama that the Republicans could exploit. With the selection of Palin they can't attack on that angle anymore because people will just point back at Palin and laugh... It's not about which of Palin/Obama is "more" experienced, it's that most Americans would consider them both to be comparably young and inexperienced.
Biden will be attacking McCain primarily by stating that McCain is the continuation of Bush. I doubt Biden will spend much time attacking Palin, because tying the unpopular Bush to McCain is where the most points can be scored.
As a Canadian, I have to mod McCain's choice "+1, Hockey". :)
One of which is that this is great publicity for the game and will surely increase sales.
Half the population has below average intelligence.
If you can point out one of the flaws in that statement, then I suspect you are not in the bottom half. :)
"That's Negative 50 BKP!!!"
I think you meant to write "That's a 50 BKP Minus!"
As a Canadian who has lived in the U.S. for a decade, I have experience with both health care systems. I experienced 6 month waits to get referals to specialists in Canada, so I'm familiar with the delays you reference. With my excellent employer provided health care in the U.S., I am much better served. I needed elective knee surgery and there was zero waiting, I could get it done within a week.
The lesson is: If you have money, you will receive faster care in the U.S than in Canada. If you're "working poor" in the U.S., then you're worse off than you would be in Canada. I think basic medical care should be available to all, having 40 million Americans with no coverage (many of them children) seems cruel to me.
I see the weaknesses in both systems, I don't wish for either.
You are confusing what he *says* he will do (the plan you linked) with what he will *actually* do as president. Did you not read the parent where we explained that successful politicians will lie to get elected?
I just love it when U.S. politicians promise to "end dependendence on foreign oil". I'm not certain which I find more amusing, their "plans" or the gullible U.S. public taking them seriously.
As you point out, to tell the truth would virtually guarantee the truth teller a loss in the election. The American people don't want to be told that things will get worse. They want to be lied to about how they can have cheap gas, low taxes, universal (but not zomg socialized!) health care, and a socially secured retirement at no cost. Whenever anything goes wrong, tell everyone they can blame it on "Washington Insiders", "Evil Corporations", or "Foreigners".
Obama knows that none of this is possible. He's a successful politician, and successful politicians get where they are by lying to people. Obama is smart enough to know when to avoid telling the truth and/or lie.
McCain is a liar too, as he is also a successful politician. They are more alike than you think. Obama is much smarter than McCain, however. So if you have to pick one of these two to be President, Obama is the better choice as he will screw up less once he is elected. Hint: Morons don't make good presidents.