Let's turn every fern into a no trespassing sign. Privatize photosynthesis!

So who gave the observatory the land? Your christian God?

So it's guns that give you property rights?

Keep it as public ground. Let the scientists fuck off to someplace else. Those observatories ruin mountaintops, destroy the natural lines that are so beautiful. Fuck those scientists. They're a bunch of poindexters way too full of themselves. Fuck them.

Drugs are a civil rights issue, an unalienable self-evident right. The court should rule that Congress cannot take away my freedom to do drugs.

It'll be corrected. I want to marry my bag of drugs!

I've been to jail a few times for possession. How are mandatory minimums for drugs still constitutional?

How do you know you're not projecting? Homosexuals existed in the Founding Fathers' times, in their circles of friends. The writers of the constitution understood that times change and that compromises such as the sanctioning of slavery would eventually be corrected. That they didn't mention homosexual rights as protected does not mean they didn't expect future generations to include homosexuality as a protected right.

No, they should expand constitutional rights, like the right to drugs. Reagan was wrong. Drugs are a civil rights issue. The government used to think drugs was a constitutional amendment issue. The court should bring them back to that position. How did they slip out of that one again?

I don't believe your story. You keep saying Medicare, I think you mean Medicaid. If you have that basic fact wrong how many mistakes did you make in the rest of your account?

It's clear that no one who wrote the bill wanted the subsidies only applied to state exchanges. It's clear from the context of the bill that the State in the passage in question refers to the State and the Federal Government. The authors of the bill have made this clear.

Republicans want to use some silly grammar-school enforcement of consistent usage as an excuse to gut a bill they don't like but couldn't vote down.

Language allows for the reader to correct obvious mistakes, unlike a compiler with a computer language. Natural language is more flexible, less brittle. SCOTUS simply acted as a reader, automatically correcting the obvious mistakes in the text.

If Congress makes another obvious mistake and refuses to fix it, then the EPA would be justified in the original interpretation. If not, SCOTUS would rule against them.

Your slippery-slope paranoia is unwarranted. FUD.

He ignores the greater context of the act though. He assumes once a word is used in one place, it has to mean the same everywhere. He forgets that natural language is fault-tolerant, and permits errors to be corrected by the reader. He wants to be a nit-picking schoolteacher or grammar nazi who knows exactly what you mean, but wants to fail you because of a spelling mistake or accidental misuse.

So you did what the guy who wrote "the State" instead of "the State or Secretary" did? Why shouldn't we hold you to your mistake, instead of the correction? It's pretty obvious what you meant, but what if slashdot editors banned you before you had a chance to correct yourself, should we stand on a strict, literal interpretation of your comment? Or can we all agree that you made a simple mistake, and interpret your words as you obviously meant them?

This is why we need a basic income. Not as if the world will fall apart because ppl prefer to work on their own projects rather than some new improved popunder technology - now with more intrusive sound!

Those poor rats. Why don't we put humans in cages and restrict their calories, and have a control group of humans with no exercise wheel for them? Because it would be unethical. Why is it ethical to treat fellow mortals such as rats in a way that's unethical to treat humans?

Let us cease testing animals, unless we can get their informed consent. Instead, let us research and develop things like organs on a chip. Then inform the rats of the findings too, so they can live happier, healthier, freer lives along with us.

We should be collaborating with animals to expand knowledge, not killing them in unreproducible experiments.

Why should we use price signals to determine knowledge and technology advancement? That kind of thinking led the government to stop investing in alternative fuel research when the price of oil dropped to $10/barrel in the 1990s. That is precisely the time government should have been funding more research into alternative fuels, as a hedge against market groupthink.

The government is not a business and should create money for the General Welfare (as the private sector creates money on the order of tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars a year, for personal profit).

Scarcity thinking applied to money throttles progress.