Many more than just her. And if you read the Koran, check out Sura 5:20 to 5:21. The land of Israel was given to the Jews. They try to live peaceably amongst their neighbors, but when your neighbors even refuse you have the right to live (let alone exist as a nation), it's hard to survive. But then, you equate settlements with murder - so we already know your sense of right and wrong is incredibly skewed...
How often do bombs go off in crowded areas in Israel? It's a lot less than one would expect when every country surrounding you refuses to even admit you have the right to exist, let alone live peaceably.
Hmmm... Christianity does not request its followers to kill, maim, rape pillage, and lie to nonbelievers. That seems to be pretty much reserved to a single "Abrahamic" religion known as Islam. Which explicitly denies (indeed, considers it a heresy worthy of death) the central tenet of Christianity:the trinity.
There are Muslims and Christians in the Israeli Parliament, and there are no laws restricting their freedom of religion. Now, bounce over just a few dozen miles and if you're Jewish or Christian, not only do you have zero rights it's perfectly OK to kill you. Yeah, that's really equivalent!
PS: Israelis are also people of Palestine (the Roman name for the land where Israel was at the time the Romans ruled itl). You don't mean "Palestinians" as there are plenty of them living legally and without problem within Israel. The converse though, Israelis/Jews (also Palestinian) living in Palestine, is not common at all.
Central to Christianity is that Jesus WAS God. He is part of the trinity: God, Son, Holy Spirit. Three in one. God made flesh on the Earth.
Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed. Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
Nope. Just pointing out the obvious. You implied he's dirty, and yet he's not the one undergoing an FBI investigation. I wonder why he's not under any criminal investigations - maybe he is clean?
What are the subsidies of roads? Remember - gas taxes are supposed to be going to road maintenance (even though they tend to be used to subsidize mass transit). And where have I stated anything about hate? Hyperbole much? I'm just explaining a way that BART can buy customers and thereby guarantee its own existence - yes, too big to fail (like the fantasy high-speed rail from LA to SF).
You do know that buses are much more damaging to roadways than cars, don't you? Damage goes as the fourth power of weight, and since an average bus weighs something like 12 times that of a car, a single bus does the damage of thousands of cars - and yet, it cannot carry thousands of people. So perhaps we need to charge buses with the externality of damage to the roads, not cars.
I see you've never sat around waiting for a train to clear the road... I time my commute in the morning to avoid the trains, since I cross the tracks 3 times.
And those ways would be? The last study I saw, from the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, was that automobiles were a net contributor (more revenue than expenditures on roads), and actually subsidized transit.
Unless those services are priced well below actual market costs - then it's "buying" riders. And the benefit of all those riders is the bureaucrats and organizations in charge of the service gain political clout/pull to gain more tax dollars, and keep themselves employed. If it was priced at-cost, most likely the people would choose differently. So yes, it can be the choice of the administrators - by figuratively giving the service away.
Yes, 2009 - and? Did the Democrats control the House and Senate for the first two years of his first term? Did the Democrats not control the Senate for 6 of his 8 years in office? That's quite different than the original contention of "his entire term" - that was bunk.
I provided the quote you asked for. Is it taking Biden out of context regarding "no SC nominees in an election year"?
Or did that only apply during a Republican Administration?
Essentially, the GOP didn't have to act on the action, because the presumed retirement waited until 1993. However, the Democrat party has a LONG history of opposing GOP nominations to the Supreme Court, and have cautioned to not do so in an election year. Why now the sudden push from the Democrats to change that position? It's the Democrats who have changed position here - not the GOP.
1. Patently untrue. Witness the fact that Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagen - nominated by Clinton or Obama - all received significant to overwhelming support from the GOP.
2. Obama had two confirmed - Sotomayor and Kagen. Neither was filibustered, both received support from GOP votes.
3. Yes, and? Both Sotomayor and Kagan had more GOP support than Thomas or Alito had Democrat support.
Essentially, both parties are equally suspicious about nominees by an opposing party and tend to vote against the nominee. To say that it's just the GOP is patently false. And if anything, delaying the vote is exactly what Joe Biden cautioned should happen - there should not be votes for SC nominations in election years.
Here you go, uncut video. The transcript is also there. It's quite clear - in Joe Biden's speech it's quite clear he is arguing that a Supreme Court nomination should NOT be taken up by the Senate. And the President shouldn't even nominate someone in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Many more than just her. And if you read the Koran, check out Sura 5:20 to 5:21. The land of Israel was given to the Jews. They try to live peaceably amongst their neighbors, but when your neighbors even refuse you have the right to live (let alone exist as a nation), it's hard to survive. But then, you equate settlements with murder - so we already know your sense of right and wrong is incredibly skewed...
How often do bombs go off in crowded areas in Israel? It's a lot less than one would expect when every country surrounding you refuses to even admit you have the right to exist, let alone live peaceably.
Hmmm... Christianity does not request its followers to kill, maim, rape pillage, and lie to nonbelievers. That seems to be pretty much reserved to a single "Abrahamic" religion known as Islam. Which explicitly denies (indeed, considers it a heresy worthy of death) the central tenet of Christianity:the trinity.
Where in the New Testament does it command Christians to kill, rape, lie to further the religion?
There are Muslims and Christians in the Israeli Parliament, and there are no laws restricting their freedom of religion. Now, bounce over just a few dozen miles and if you're Jewish or Christian, not only do you have zero rights it's perfectly OK to kill you. Yeah, that's really equivalent!
PS: Israelis are also people of Palestine (the Roman name for the land where Israel was at the time the Romans ruled itl). You don't mean "Palestinians" as there are plenty of them living legally and without problem within Israel. The converse though, Israelis/Jews (also Palestinian) living in Palestine, is not common at all.
ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks. So spot on... Why you were moderated as funny...
Central to Christianity is that Jesus WAS God. He is part of the trinity: God, Son, Holy Spirit. Three in one. God made flesh on the Earth.
Central to Islam is that Jesus was just a prophet, and wasn't even the best as that was reserved for Mohammed. Neither of which were God incarnate on Earth. So no, not even close to having its roots in Christianity.
So... Islam.
Border controls seem to work pretty well for Israel... Likewise a policy of profiling.
Nope. Just pointing out the obvious. You implied he's dirty, and yet he's not the one undergoing an FBI investigation. I wonder why he's not under any criminal investigations - maybe he is clean?
What are the subsidies of roads? Remember - gas taxes are supposed to be going to road maintenance (even though they tend to be used to subsidize mass transit). And where have I stated anything about hate? Hyperbole much? I'm just explaining a way that BART can buy customers and thereby guarantee its own existence - yes, too big to fail (like the fantasy high-speed rail from LA to SF).
You do know that buses are much more damaging to roadways than cars, don't you? Damage goes as the fourth power of weight, and since an average bus weighs something like 12 times that of a car, a single bus does the damage of thousands of cars - and yet, it cannot carry thousands of people. So perhaps we need to charge buses with the externality of damage to the roads, not cars.
I see you've never sat around waiting for a train to clear the road... I time my commute in the morning to avoid the trains, since I cross the tracks 3 times.
OK, so what are those external costs? And how about the external - and direct - costs of mass transit?
Is he undergoing an FBI investigation like another candidate?
There is literally more information on Wikipedia about him.
Shhh QUIET! You've revealed their super-secret source of info for doxxen teh Trump!
It's systemd that's the problem...
And those ways would be? The last study I saw, from the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, was that automobiles were a net contributor (more revenue than expenditures on roads), and actually subsidized transit.
Unless those services are priced well below actual market costs - then it's "buying" riders. And the benefit of all those riders is the bureaucrats and organizations in charge of the service gain political clout/pull to gain more tax dollars, and keep themselves employed. If it was priced at-cost, most likely the people would choose differently. So yes, it can be the choice of the administrators - by figuratively giving the service away.
And that beautiful California weather you talk about isn't even in the Bay area, but down in Southern California!
It's OK, he's a liberal, he's not supposed to be good at math...
Yes, 2009 - and? Did the Democrats control the House and Senate for the first two years of his first term? Did the Democrats not control the Senate for 6 of his 8 years in office? That's quite different than the original contention of "his entire term" - that was bunk.
I provided the quote you asked for. Is it taking Biden out of context regarding "no SC nominees in an election year"?
Or did that only apply during a Republican Administration?
Essentially, the GOP didn't have to act on the action, because the presumed retirement waited until 1993. However, the Democrat party has a LONG history of opposing GOP nominations to the Supreme Court, and have cautioned to not do so in an election year. Why now the sudden push from the Democrats to change that position? It's the Democrats who have changed position here - not the GOP.
1. Patently untrue. Witness the fact that Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagen - nominated by Clinton or Obama - all received significant to overwhelming support from the GOP.
2. Obama had two confirmed - Sotomayor and Kagen. Neither was filibustered, both received support from GOP votes.
3. Yes, and? Both Sotomayor and Kagan had more GOP support than Thomas or Alito had Democrat support.
Essentially, both parties are equally suspicious about nominees by an opposing party and tend to vote against the nominee. To say that it's just the GOP is patently false. And if anything, delaying the vote is exactly what Joe Biden cautioned should happen - there should not be votes for SC nominations in election years.
Here you go, uncut video. The transcript is also there. It's quite clear - in Joe Biden's speech it's quite clear he is arguing that a Supreme Court nomination should NOT be taken up by the Senate. And the President shouldn't even nominate someone in the first place.