Lol at the concept that Liberals are the racist ones. You should really pull your head out of your ass and take a look around some time. Things look different out here when you're not covered in your own shit.
There are racists (and sexists, and other bigots) on both sides of the aisle; neither party has a monopoly on prejudice and bias.
If we consider the global political scale (and not the screwed up US centric one).
The Democrats are center right, the Republicans are right to far right. There is no center left, left or far left parties in the US at the current time. (Now if they had chosen Senders instead of Hillary, the president might have been center left instead of center right but still would not be too far to the left).
At last I understand these comments calling the Democrats center right! It's relative to the global stage and not limited to what is considered left, center, and right within the US. It's relative morality all over again. Sorry, but most of the world is too far left for American tastes.
What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious. What crimes have been revealed by the DNC emails that were released? Staffers at the DNC didn't much like a number of members of Sanders's staff. Some of them preferred Clinton. Good policy? Maybe, maybe not, but not a crime by any definition of the term.
I haven't read the emails, but I don't believe they expose any crimes committed by the DNC; instead it shows that they did not want to play by their own rules when determining their candidate. It's dirty pool which may disenfranchise some Democrats.
It needed lots of republican support because so many democrats were against it.
The "Democrats" you are referring to were what was colloquially known as "Dixiecrats" who were conservative by every measure. They were assholes who simply could not join "The party of Lincoln" but were today's conservatives nonetheless.
It's a shame when people make assertions without taking the time to understand the situation, as you have done here.
Nice use of the "No true Scotsman" argument. Funny how Republicans get called out when disavowing the Tea Party...
The country was founded almost 300 years ago, when automation meant horses and mechanical clocks. The longer the pols believe there's a magic formula to create more jobs to keep people busy, fat & happy, the more suffering there will be as jobs simply go away.
The US declared independence from England in 1776. 2016 - 17776 = 240 years. Not quite the "almost 300 years ago" you claim. European settlers arrived in North America during the 1630s, but it wasn't yet the US.
Depends what you consider work. For example, a mother taking care of her children is certainly work. Why not pay a mother that stays home and raise her kids (which in most cases is the best and least expensive option) rather than forcing her to get a job and spend large part of her income on daycare?
In my neck of the woods, daycare runs $5 per child per hour. I have 2 children, so my wife would need to earn over $15 / hour (pre tax) in order to pay for day care.
Obama and Hillary are both very Centrist or Right-leaning. If they were willing to lie and say they thought fetal life Trumped a mothers choice (like the Republican candidates) they could pick some single issue voters, like my Mother. If they could grow a Penis or lighten their skin, the GOP would be in shambles.
I can't tell if you were serious or just trolling. The vast majority of Republicans don't care about race, ethnicity, or sex (yes, we do care about gender to an extent) when it comes to determining who best qualifies. Also, Obama seems to be a Socialist in Democrat's clothing; his agenda certainly doesn't follow the Right's. IMO, Hillary would be even more extreme, but I'm leery of Trump as President.
To be fair, many of the Republican candidates don't think Women should make any choices. I myself think abortion is terrible, but I realize that the Democratic policies will result in fewer abortions due to social changes.
You truly don't understand Republicans, instead you attack the caricatures painted by the Left. The vast majority of the Right believe that women have the same rights as men. The Left has labeled the Right's stance on abortion as "Women's choice". My view is heavily influenced by my religious upbringing. I believe that abortion is morally wrong in most cases; that we need to protect the rights of the fetus within reason. The woman (in most cases) made the choice to engage in activities which resulted in pregnancy; she should be held responsible for her decisions. The man should also be held responsible for providing for the child. There are cases where I don't think abortion would be morally wrong such as rape or when the fetus is not viable (eg. missing organs) or the mother's life is in peril. I think there should be safe places to perform abortions in such cases. Alas, these are just my morals (shared by many of the Right) so I don't know if it would be moral to force them on others. In any case, my tax dollars should not be used on elective abortions.
I got a GPS for my car ten years ago and haven't looked at a road mileage sign in a decade. What would be the point of renumbering all the road signs if we're all going to have self driving cars next year. Other than being a jobs program?
The biggest problem is that cities are laid out in mile grids, so saying 'go 4 miles' is the same as saying go four stop lights. Same goes for freeway ramps. Seven miles - take the 7th offramp. Saying get off in 11.2km would be very confusing for most people and necessarily pointless.
Self-driving cars are still far-enough away that we do need signs. Signs are also helpful for bicyclists and pedestrians. GPS is a non-issue as users can specify desired units in their preferences. Map services are getting better all the time, but I wouldn't trust Google Map 100% of the time over road signs.
Some places use the grid system, but not all; Utah does. There are 8 "city blocks" to the mile, and 100 house numbers per "city block". Often there is an ordinal saying the relationship to the center of the city (intersection of Main Street and Center Street). In these cases "city block" is a distance unit which may or may not refer to a physical block (I once lived on 1834 South). Utah uses the closest mile marker as the exit number; GPS still says "In X miles take exit 306 for 600 South". My wife's GPC says "In Y km take exit 306 for 600 South". The fact that exit 306 is near mile marker 306 is irrelevant to GPS. Please note that some mile markers have multiple exits (A-D for example), while you may go 20+ miles without an exit. Knowing how these number are derived definitely gives those drivers an advantage, but is now necessary knowledge.
Not to mention that Obama has actually deported more immigrants than any president - ever (bet you didn't know that) and that net Mexican immigration under Obama is NEGATIVE - more people have left the US for Mexico than has entered the US from Mexico during Obama's administration.
Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
If you want to argue that immigration policy is too lenient - then you can have that debate, we may not agree but there is room to debate. What you do NOT get to do is pretend Obama has been more lenient than any president since the current immigration act was signed into law by Reagan since that is absolutely not true.
Fox news has been lying to you.
The immigration act may have been signed into law by Reagan, but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families. The same executive order half the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional.
I would love to discuss immigration policy. I am pro-legal immigration. Myself and two siblings married people who legally entered the US. I am vehemently against illegal immigration. I don't believe we should reward people for breaking the law. I welcome guests through my front door, but anyone climbing through a window will not get a warm welcome.
As for Fox news, I don't watch it. All news outlets show too much bias. All twist statistics to support their preconceived notions.
Brazilian here, have lived in Rio, in Boston, and now in Belo Horizonte:
- You CAN drink tap water in Rio, that wont kill you.
My experience in Brazil is limited to São Paulo state (Campinas region), Fortaleza, and a very brief stay in Rio. I was expressly forbidden to drink tap water from host families, them citing health problems. Maybe it won't kill you, but you could pick up worms - especially for gringos whose immune systems aren't developed for local pathogens.
- Stray bullets or carjacking are a more likely cause of trouble.
Yes, crime is a major concern, but you can avoid the favelas.
- No, Zika wouldnt be a concern durign winter.
Again, in SP, I saw mosquitoes all months of the year.
I saw many pristine beaches in Fortaleza; my travels didn't take me to the beach in SP. I was specifically referencing the lagoon where the canoe competitions will be held.
I wouldnt go to Rio. You shouldnt.
I avoid big events in general, so I'll go to Rio in an off season.
You are stupid or what? Big cities do not have risk of yellow fever disease. And while dengue indeed has an infection factor higher than zika, it still is 5 to every 100k. We are on winter here in Brasil, in case you all don't know. If the Olympics were being played during the summer, then the rates would be way higher.
Define "big cities". I was in Campinas which has millions of inhabitants. Also, there is "mato" close to many of the cities in Brazil where I stayed. My wife is from Fortaleza, so I understand that Brazil is on the other side of the equator, hence opposite seasons. Many of the cities in SP I visited during winter (June-August) were still hot enough for mosquito problems. Admittedly, it was February when I visited Rio, so maybe it gets colder than SP.
Not really... sorry, no, I meant not at all. He RAN as a liberal, but he didn't rule as one. Center-right would be a more apt description of his actual policies. He didn't do single-payer health-care or even provide a public-option. He didn't submit a single bill to defend gay or trans rights and the only significant thing he did in this regard was to push for an education department policy about trans bathroom access, which came way too late. He hasn't pardoned Snowden. He hasn't rolled back the Patriot act. He didn't end either war. He didn't reduce the military spending. He didn't do anything to oppose the militarization of the police. He didn't speak out against atrociously oppressive laws by republican state legislatures. He didn't do anything concrete on climate change and the little he did came too late. He basically didn't change anything and offered no real hope. He didn't reduce US support for Israel or give any kind of balanced response to the events in the region. He was the perfect DINO.
Obama a centrist? Don't make me laugh! As for pardoning Snowden, a President can't pardon someone who hasn't been charged.
Didn't he stretch the presidential powers to the best of his ability?
Again - not supported by the facts. He issued the lowest number of executive orders of any president in the past 70 years. His immigration policies didn't do anything that hasn't been done by every president since Reagan. His last supreme court nomination is a noted centrist whom republicans used to support. He didn't declare any wars and only engaged in one major military action - which had UN approval and involvement.
He also didn't reduce them though. He didn't reclassify marijuana, end private prisons (at least federally), or act against mandatory minimum sentences. He didn't try to repeal PATRIOT and he didn't actively oppose NSA spying (which started well before him).
Truth be told. Obama's administration is basically a no-score win.
Look at the content of those executive orders and not just straight numbers. Declaring that federal workers will get both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day off (yes, that was an executive order!) isn't on the same level as granting amnesty to 6 million illegal immigrants. Obama has shown his true colors. When he doesn't get his way through proper channels, he takes his ball and goes home - after issuing an executive order.
If politicians weren't retards they would list BOTH units on speed signs to help people transition over. Would cost a ton of money for sign replacement but that can be amortized over the years.
I actually support putting both units on signs as they need replacement, though not for the reason you suggest. How many millions of tourists visit the US per year and have troubles with our signage in miles?
There was a recent article here on Brasil that portrayed the actual scientists which are dealing with the Zika virus on a daily basis. And they put together the odds of someone being infected with it during the games. It is low. 3 in every 100k. The odds of being shot by a stray bullet on Rio is 3,8 in every 100k. So, quit the fear mongering and come play on this ridiculous thing that is the Olympics.
You forgot the other exotic diseases like yellow fever and dengue - much more prevalent and easier to catch. I needed 10 vaccines in order to spend two years in São Paulo. Oh, and that worm medicine every 6 months. If you're just spending a couple weeks to a month there, you should be able to avoid most of the medical perils by following simple rules (most importantly, don't drink tap water). Athletes are at much greater risk than spectators (spectators shouldn't accidentally get splashed by water from the lagoon, for example).
We can find some to work for the Brazil min wage way less then even what we pay our H1B's and we don't have to play HR games.
Minimum wage in Brasil is about 800 reais per month (yes, it's defined per month instead of per hour). Last time I checked the US dollar is worth R$3.20. US$250 would be a great price for companies to pay. My tourist visa to Brazil cost that alone, not to mention airfare (about a grand), hotel, etc. Additionally, good jobs should lower the number of Brazilians in poverty.
I wouldn't step foot in Rio or anywhere in Brazil for that matter.
I spent two years in São Paulo state (plus additional time traveling to other states). Trust me, Brasil doesn't want people like you. It's an amazing country with rich culture and amazing natural wonders. Granted, there are places that a gringo should avoid (just like any other country), but it is easy to keep safe.
... we're not able to participate because we are still investigating Obama's birth status and stuff.
I know you're razzing the "Birthers". But the issue of where Obama was physically born is moot. One of his parents is - and was at the time - a U.S. citizen, and that makes him "native born" for presidential eligibility purposes, regardless of where the birth took place (or the child was raised).
- There once was a requirement that, if the only U.S. citizen parent was the mother, the father needed to have been a US resident for a certain number of years. That sexism was removed long before even the Equal Rights Amendment movement.
- The time limit on reporting the birth is only for the bureaucracy to automatically issue papers, without additional bureaucratic or court proceedings. There is no time-limited reporting requirement on the actual native-born status.
I was interested in the birthers' complaint because my understanding of 'natural born citizen' was that it was necessary to be born on US soil or have both parents US citizens (something I learned from Hawaii's public school system). While researching the claims, I discovered that the Supreme Court deems that if at least one parent is a US citizen at the time, then the child is automatically a natural born citizen. Barak was too young to revoke his US citizenship when he was in Indonesia. I dislike Obama's political stylings, especially all his executive orders, but I can't question that he met the requirements to be President as outlined by the Constitution.
The man deserves jail time. There are many more criminals on the Internet and he made public government secrets that compromise our security as well as gave terrorists insight on how to avoid being traced. Edward Snowden should be executed.
Snowden should be tried for the crimes he (allegedly) committed. Let the trial be as public as possible. I won't clamor for jail time or execution until a jury finds him guilty (innocent until proven guilty and all that). The punishment should fit the crime.
Was Jesus a Christian? Did Jesus intend for his teachings to turn into a new religion instead of reforming Judaism? BTW, Jew could refer to a descendant of Judah (the son of Jacob / Israel) or someone who adheres to Judaism; thus it is not a contradiction that a Jew would be a Christian.
What you're talking about is a matter of interpretation that has been argued ad infinitum (the definition of when life begins) and has been ruled upon by the courts several times. The "fetal homicide" law is also not applicable in 12 states, and does not cover a decision by the mother, who after all, is the person who likely suffers the greatest consequences of the no doubt difficult decision to abort.
It really has very little in common with the clearcut seatbelt case, and attempts to conflate the two are muddled thinking.
Um, it has everything to do with people should be able to do stupid things unless it (potentially) hurts another - YOUR argument against seatbelt laws.
Not wearing a seat belt potentially endangers others (passengers, other drivers who may be struck as a result of avoidable loss of control were the driver to wear a seatbelt). Your freedom to make stupid choices ends when it infringes upon my freedoms.
An abortion endangers others (most notably the embryo / fetus). If you make a stupid choice (such as having unprotected sex when you don't want to get pregnant), you deserve it. As always, allowances should be made when the pregnancy didn't result from a choice (eg. rape). If killing a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide, then killing the embryo / fetus should count as a homicide, right?
No, it can't. It is lack of belief in deities, and, by extension, the supernatural. Usually the people claiming it is a religion are religious themselves and do it because they can't handle the possibility of people having morality that lacks dependency on the supernatural.
Is atheism the lack of belief in deities, or the belief that deities don't exist?
We associated the idea of descriptive names with other cultures, and do not call our daughters things like "cloud-flower" (although we do use Fern, Ivy, April, etc).
I have a sister-in-law whose name means "first leaf". She was so named because she was born in the spring. I had a scout master whose name means "big mouth" because he cried a lot as a newborn. My sister's friend has a name which means "peace" because of her disposition as a newborn. Just because in the US we rarely use descriptive names doesn't mean they are out of fashion elsewhere.
A couple years ago Facebook was caught modifying contact's email addresses so that all email sent would go through them. It's shit like that without users permission that makes people want to use a web browser which is more limited in what it can do.
On my iPhone, it never altered contacts on my SIM or Gmail account; instead I got new a new "Facebook Contacts" account which I then had to manually associate with existing contacts. At most, contacts I had in Facebook, but not in Gmail got an @facebook.com email address.
When the "smarts" become obsolete, you must replace the entire TV (assuming the TV manufacturer doesn't offer a firmware upgrade). This happened to a bunch of people who owned 2013 Sony TVs when Google changed the YouTube API and Sony didn't offer a firmware upgrade. I would rather replace a relatively inexpensive device (such as a Blu-ray player) or have a dedicated HTPC than replace a $2k TV.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol at the concept that Liberals are the racist ones. You should really pull your head out of your ass and take a look around some time. Things look different out here when you're not covered in your own shit.
There are racists (and sexists, and other bigots) on both sides of the aisle; neither party has a monopoly on prejudice and bias.
If we consider the global political scale (and not the screwed up US centric one).
The Democrats are center right, the Republicans are right to far right. There is no center left, left or far left parties in the US at the current time. (Now if they had chosen Senders instead of Hillary, the president might have been center left instead of center right but still would not be too far to the left).
At last I understand these comments calling the Democrats center right! It's relative to the global stage and not limited to what is considered left, center, and right within the US. It's relative morality all over again. Sorry, but most of the world is too far left for American tastes.
What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious. What crimes have been revealed by the DNC emails that were released? Staffers at the DNC didn't much like a number of members of Sanders's staff. Some of them preferred Clinton. Good policy? Maybe, maybe not, but not a crime by any definition of the term.
I haven't read the emails, but I don't believe they expose any crimes committed by the DNC; instead it shows that they did not want to play by their own rules when determining their candidate. It's dirty pool which may disenfranchise some Democrats.
It needed lots of republican support because so many democrats were against it.
The "Democrats" you are referring to were what was colloquially known as "Dixiecrats" who were conservative by every measure. They were assholes who simply could not join "The party of Lincoln" but were today's conservatives nonetheless.
It's a shame when people make assertions without taking the time to understand the situation, as you have done here.
Nice use of the "No true Scotsman" argument. Funny how Republicans get called out when disavowing the Tea Party...
The country was founded almost 300 years ago, when automation meant horses and mechanical clocks. The longer the pols believe there's a magic formula to create more jobs to keep people busy, fat & happy, the more suffering there will be as jobs simply go away.
The US declared independence from England in 1776. 2016 - 17776 = 240 years. Not quite the "almost 300 years ago" you claim. European settlers arrived in North America during the 1630s, but it wasn't yet the US.
Depends what you consider work. For example, a mother taking care of her children is certainly work. Why not pay a mother that stays home and raise her kids (which in most cases is the best and least expensive option) rather than forcing her to get a job and spend large part of her income on daycare?
In my neck of the woods, daycare runs $5 per child per hour. I have 2 children, so my wife would need to earn over $15 / hour (pre tax) in order to pay for day care.
Obama and Hillary are both very Centrist or Right-leaning. If they were willing to lie and say they thought fetal life Trumped a mothers choice (like the Republican candidates) they could pick some single issue voters, like my Mother. If they could grow a Penis or lighten their skin, the GOP would be in shambles.
I can't tell if you were serious or just trolling. The vast majority of Republicans don't care about race, ethnicity, or sex (yes, we do care about gender to an extent) when it comes to determining who best qualifies. Also, Obama seems to be a Socialist in Democrat's clothing; his agenda certainly doesn't follow the Right's. IMO, Hillary would be even more extreme, but I'm leery of Trump as President.
To be fair, many of the Republican candidates don't think Women should make any choices. I myself think abortion is terrible, but I realize that the Democratic policies will result in fewer abortions due to social changes.
You truly don't understand Republicans, instead you attack the caricatures painted by the Left. The vast majority of the Right believe that women have the same rights as men. The Left has labeled the Right's stance on abortion as "Women's choice". My view is heavily influenced by my religious upbringing. I believe that abortion is morally wrong in most cases; that we need to protect the rights of the fetus within reason. The woman (in most cases) made the choice to engage in activities which resulted in pregnancy; she should be held responsible for her decisions. The man should also be held responsible for providing for the child. There are cases where I don't think abortion would be morally wrong such as rape or when the fetus is not viable (eg. missing organs) or the mother's life is in peril. I think there should be safe places to perform abortions in such cases. Alas, these are just my morals (shared by many of the Right) so I don't know if it would be moral to force them on others. In any case, my tax dollars should not be used on elective abortions.
I got a GPS for my car ten years ago and haven't looked at a road mileage sign in a decade. What would be the point of renumbering all the road signs if we're all going to have self driving cars next year. Other than being a jobs program?
The biggest problem is that cities are laid out in mile grids, so saying 'go 4 miles' is the same as saying go four stop lights. Same goes for freeway ramps. Seven miles - take the 7th offramp. Saying get off in 11.2km would be very confusing for most people and necessarily pointless.
Self-driving cars are still far-enough away that we do need signs. Signs are also helpful for bicyclists and pedestrians. GPS is a non-issue as users can specify desired units in their preferences. Map services are getting better all the time, but I wouldn't trust Google Map 100% of the time over road signs.
Some places use the grid system, but not all; Utah does. There are 8 "city blocks" to the mile, and 100 house numbers per "city block". Often there is an ordinal saying the relationship to the center of the city (intersection of Main Street and Center Street). In these cases "city block" is a distance unit which may or may not refer to a physical block (I once lived on 1834 South). Utah uses the closest mile marker as the exit number; GPS still says "In X miles take exit 306 for 600 South". My wife's GPC says "In Y km take exit 306 for 600 South". The fact that exit 306 is near mile marker 306 is irrelevant to GPS. Please note that some mile markers have multiple exits (A-D for example), while you may go 20+ miles without an exit. Knowing how these number are derived definitely gives those drivers an advantage, but is now necessary knowledge.
Not to mention that Obama has actually deported more immigrants than any president - ever (bet you didn't know that) and that net Mexican immigration under Obama is NEGATIVE - more people have left the US for Mexico than has entered the US from Mexico during Obama's administration.
Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
If you want to argue that immigration policy is too lenient - then you can have that debate, we may not agree but there is room to debate. What you do NOT get to do is pretend Obama has been more lenient than any president since the current immigration act was signed into law by Reagan since that is absolutely not true. Fox news has been lying to you.
The immigration act may have been signed into law by Reagan, but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families. The same executive order half the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional.
I would love to discuss immigration policy. I am pro-legal immigration. Myself and two siblings married people who legally entered the US. I am vehemently against illegal immigration. I don't believe we should reward people for breaking the law. I welcome guests through my front door, but anyone climbing through a window will not get a warm welcome.
As for Fox news, I don't watch it. All news outlets show too much bias. All twist statistics to support their preconceived notions.
Brazilian here, have lived in Rio, in Boston, and now in Belo Horizonte: - You CAN drink tap water in Rio, that wont kill you.
My experience in Brazil is limited to São Paulo state (Campinas region), Fortaleza, and a very brief stay in Rio. I was expressly forbidden to drink tap water from host families, them citing health problems. Maybe it won't kill you, but you could pick up worms - especially for gringos whose immune systems aren't developed for local pathogens.
- Stray bullets or carjacking are a more likely cause of trouble.
Yes, crime is a major concern, but you can avoid the favelas.
- No, Zika wouldnt be a concern durign winter.
Again, in SP, I saw mosquitoes all months of the year.
And the beach...
I saw many pristine beaches in Fortaleza; my travels didn't take me to the beach in SP. I was specifically referencing the lagoon where the canoe competitions will be held.
I wouldnt go to Rio. You shouldnt.
I avoid big events in general, so I'll go to Rio in an off season.
You are stupid or what? Big cities do not have risk of yellow fever disease. And while dengue indeed has an infection factor higher than zika, it still is 5 to every 100k. We are on winter here in Brasil, in case you all don't know. If the Olympics were being played during the summer, then the rates would be way higher.
Define "big cities". I was in Campinas which has millions of inhabitants. Also, there is "mato" close to many of the cities in Brazil where I stayed. My wife is from Fortaleza, so I understand that Brazil is on the other side of the equator, hence opposite seasons. Many of the cities in SP I visited during winter (June-August) were still hot enough for mosquito problems. Admittedly, it was February when I visited Rio, so maybe it gets colder than SP.
Didn't Obama count as a liberal?
Not really... sorry, no, I meant not at all. He RAN as a liberal, but he didn't rule as one. Center-right would be a more apt description of his actual policies. He didn't do single-payer health-care or even provide a public-option. He didn't submit a single bill to defend gay or trans rights and the only significant thing he did in this regard was to push for an education department policy about trans bathroom access, which came way too late. He hasn't pardoned Snowden. He hasn't rolled back the Patriot act. He didn't end either war. He didn't reduce the military spending. He didn't do anything to oppose the militarization of the police. He didn't speak out against atrociously oppressive laws by republican state legislatures. He didn't do anything concrete on climate change and the little he did came too late. He basically didn't change anything and offered no real hope. He didn't reduce US support for Israel or give any kind of balanced response to the events in the region. He was the perfect DINO.
Obama a centrist? Don't make me laugh! As for pardoning Snowden, a President can't pardon someone who hasn't been charged.
Didn't he stretch the presidential powers to the best of his ability?
Again - not supported by the facts. He issued the lowest number of executive orders of any president in the past 70 years. His immigration policies didn't do anything that hasn't been done by every president since Reagan. His last supreme court nomination is a noted centrist whom republicans used to support. He didn't declare any wars and only engaged in one major military action - which had UN approval and involvement. He also didn't reduce them though. He didn't reclassify marijuana, end private prisons (at least federally), or act against mandatory minimum sentences. He didn't try to repeal PATRIOT and he didn't actively oppose NSA spying (which started well before him).
Truth be told. Obama's administration is basically a no-score win.
Look at the content of those executive orders and not just straight numbers. Declaring that federal workers will get both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day off (yes, that was an executive order!) isn't on the same level as granting amnesty to 6 million illegal immigrants. Obama has shown his true colors. When he doesn't get his way through proper channels, he takes his ball and goes home - after issuing an executive order.
If politicians weren't retards they would list BOTH units on speed signs to help people transition over. Would cost a ton of money for sign replacement but that can be amortized over the years.
I actually support putting both units on signs as they need replacement, though not for the reason you suggest. How many millions of tourists visit the US per year and have troubles with our signage in miles?
There was a recent article here on Brasil that portrayed the actual scientists which are dealing with the Zika virus on a daily basis. And they put together the odds of someone being infected with it during the games. It is low. 3 in every 100k. The odds of being shot by a stray bullet on Rio is 3,8 in every 100k. So, quit the fear mongering and come play on this ridiculous thing that is the Olympics.
You forgot the other exotic diseases like yellow fever and dengue - much more prevalent and easier to catch. I needed 10 vaccines in order to spend two years in São Paulo. Oh, and that worm medicine every 6 months. If you're just spending a couple weeks to a month there, you should be able to avoid most of the medical perils by following simple rules (most importantly, don't drink tap water). Athletes are at much greater risk than spectators (spectators shouldn't accidentally get splashed by water from the lagoon, for example).
We can find some to work for the Brazil min wage way less then even what we pay our H1B's and we don't have to play HR games.
Minimum wage in Brasil is about 800 reais per month (yes, it's defined per month instead of per hour). Last time I checked the US dollar is worth R$3.20. US$250 would be a great price for companies to pay. My tourist visa to Brazil cost that alone, not to mention airfare (about a grand), hotel, etc. Additionally, good jobs should lower the number of Brazilians in poverty.
I wouldn't step foot in Rio or anywhere in Brazil for that matter.
I spent two years in São Paulo state (plus additional time traveling to other states). Trust me, Brasil doesn't want people like you. It's an amazing country with rich culture and amazing natural wonders. Granted, there are places that a gringo should avoid (just like any other country), but it is easy to keep safe.
I know you're razzing the "Birthers". But the issue of where Obama was physically born is moot. One of his parents is - and was at the time - a U.S. citizen, and that makes him "native born" for presidential eligibility purposes, regardless of where the birth took place (or the child was raised).
- There once was a requirement that, if the only U.S. citizen parent was the mother, the father needed to have been a US resident for a certain number of years. That sexism was removed long before even the Equal Rights Amendment movement. - The time limit on reporting the birth is only for the bureaucracy to automatically issue papers, without additional bureaucratic or court proceedings. There is no time-limited reporting requirement on the actual native-born status.
I was interested in the birthers' complaint because my understanding of 'natural born citizen' was that it was necessary to be born on US soil or have both parents US citizens (something I learned from Hawaii's public school system). While researching the claims, I discovered that the Supreme Court deems that if at least one parent is a US citizen at the time, then the child is automatically a natural born citizen. Barak was too young to revoke his US citizenship when he was in Indonesia. I dislike Obama's political stylings, especially all his executive orders, but I can't question that he met the requirements to be President as outlined by the Constitution.
The man deserves jail time. There are many more criminals on the Internet and he made public government secrets that compromise our security as well as gave terrorists insight on how to avoid being traced. Edward Snowden should be executed.
Snowden should be tried for the crimes he (allegedly) committed. Let the trial be as public as possible. I won't clamor for jail time or execution until a jury finds him guilty (innocent until proven guilty and all that). The punishment should fit the crime.
Praise the Greatest Christian (A Jew) Jesus.
Was Jesus a Christian? Did Jesus intend for his teachings to turn into a new religion instead of reforming Judaism? BTW, Jew could refer to a descendant of Judah (the son of Jacob / Israel) or someone who adheres to Judaism; thus it is not a contradiction that a Jew would be a Christian.
What you're talking about is a matter of interpretation that has been argued ad infinitum (the definition of when life begins) and has been ruled upon by the courts several times. The "fetal homicide" law is also not applicable in 12 states, and does not cover a decision by the mother, who after all, is the person who likely suffers the greatest consequences of the no doubt difficult decision to abort.
It really has very little in common with the clearcut seatbelt case, and attempts to conflate the two are muddled thinking.
Um, it has everything to do with people should be able to do stupid things unless it (potentially) hurts another - YOUR argument against seatbelt laws.
Not wearing a seat belt potentially endangers others (passengers, other drivers who may be struck as a result of avoidable loss of control were the driver to wear a seatbelt). Your freedom to make stupid choices ends when it infringes upon my freedoms.
An abortion endangers others (most notably the embryo / fetus). If you make a stupid choice (such as having unprotected sex when you don't want to get pregnant), you deserve it. As always, allowances should be made when the pregnancy didn't result from a choice (eg. rape). If killing a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide, then killing the embryo / fetus should count as a homicide, right?
No, it can't. It is lack of belief in deities, and, by extension, the supernatural. Usually the people claiming it is a religion are religious themselves and do it because they can't handle the possibility of people having morality that lacks dependency on the supernatural.
Is atheism the lack of belief in deities, or the belief that deities don't exist?
We associated the idea of descriptive names with other cultures, and do not call our daughters things like "cloud-flower" (although we do use Fern, Ivy, April, etc).
I have a sister-in-law whose name means "first leaf". She was so named because she was born in the spring. I had a scout master whose name means "big mouth" because he cried a lot as a newborn. My sister's friend has a name which means "peace" because of her disposition as a newborn. Just because in the US we rarely use descriptive names doesn't mean they are out of fashion elsewhere.
A couple years ago Facebook was caught modifying contact's email addresses so that all email sent would go through them. It's shit like that without users permission that makes people want to use a web browser which is more limited in what it can do.
On my iPhone, it never altered contacts on my SIM or Gmail account; instead I got new a new "Facebook Contacts" account which I then had to manually associate with existing contacts. At most, contacts I had in Facebook, but not in Gmail got an @facebook.com email address.
When the "smarts" become obsolete, you must replace the entire TV (assuming the TV manufacturer doesn't offer a firmware upgrade). This happened to a bunch of people who owned 2013 Sony TVs when Google changed the YouTube API and Sony didn't offer a firmware upgrade. I would rather replace a relatively inexpensive device (such as a Blu-ray player) or have a dedicated HTPC than replace a $2k TV.