'Jewish' is both a race and religion.

By Jewish law, if your mother is Jewish, so are you.

Not that we care about Jewish law all that much, by Muslim law if your father is Muslim then so are you. They all like to run around 'claiming the house'.

It should be quite obvious to you what happens when we tax people on what they own. We already have this: it's called property (or school) tax. It's what causes people to sell their homes and move, because they can't afford to live there anymore. These are usually people in or near retirement. If you think it's OK to kick old people out of their homes-- because we all know, they're such drags on society-- then you can have your draconian property tax.

You still won't eat the rich, which is what you obviously really want.

All religions. Monotheism has nothing to do with claims of exclusive knowledge of 'Truth'.

I'm starting to think that having private citizens pay any tax directly to the federal government is a problem. It completely overrides their right to govern themselves at the state and local level. Because the federal government is entitled to so much of the people's wealth, it is given de facto power over everything. Disagree? Then ask why every state's drinking age is 21.

Cite some sources? Because my state sure does not exclude basic groceries. When I look at my grocery receipt, it clearly states the tax percentage and is applied after everything is totaled up. If there is a state that does not follow this method, let me know.

Wherever you are (you don't say), I suspect your sales tax on groceries is more the exception than the rule. For just one example, Nevada doesn't tax groceries. If you're paying tax on a grocery-store purchase, it's for (1) non-food items (such as cleaning supplies) and/or (2) prepared, ready-to-eat foods (such as fried or roast chicken from the deli counter, vs. a box of frozen breaded chicken strips or a package of fresh chicken that needs to be cooked first and isn't taxed).

Crashing through a gate where there's a guy armed with a machine gun is a really good way to get shot, a lot. It annoys the guy with the machine gun, and he has a tendency to shoot things that annoy him. And he's not using the cheap Wal*Mart bullets, either. The last thing to go through your head, I mean, before bullets, would probably be "Wow, those are really some high quality bullets that guy is shooting me with!" I seem to recall that this sort of thing was fairly common back in the 70's and 80's with the hippies trying to disrupt the SAC air force bases. We seem to be having a spike in the crazy/stupid lately, where people seem to think that if you go crashing through a gate with a guy with a machine gun, they'll be nice to you or something. Nope. Not the case at all.

The late 70s.

I just finished Reza Aslan's "Jesus the Zealot," and much was said about the Roman occupation, and the Levite collaborators, even in the sanitized gospels that were whitewashed for a Roman audience.

"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's," is actually a direct challenge to throw the Romans out of Judea, a statement made within the Court of the Gentiles on the temple grounds. Tearing down and rebuilding the temple in three days, as a challenge to the high priest Caiaphas, also directly threatened the Roman order.

The Roman governors of Judea were alternately viciously efficient or incompetent, and a spirit of rebellion reached a crescendo after the crucifixion, when Judea was free from Roman rule for four years, then crushed by the armies of Vespasian and his son Titus, who utterly destroyed Jerusalem.

I bet the really shocked ones where the teachers once the students 'expressed themselves'. They likely never did that again.

Wasting your time. They have had the 2nd explained to them more often then a creationist has had evolution explained to them. They don't want to know.

You cannot educate 'willful ignorance'. It's a waste of time to try.

A better question. Why would you want someone photographing your wedding that hated you?

I'd prefer to spend my money on someone else.

Paraphrasing Ben Franklin. 'Why would you want to shut-up your opponents. Let them talk, encourage them to talk. That way everybody knows they are idiots.'

The world is a large place, gays will find photographers and bakers. Holy rollers will lose money. It's not 1950, assets are not so closely held and there are plenty of heathens, even in the bible belt.

I felt the same way, and frankly I could get by without a smart watch, but the feature set really hit my use-case. I do onsite consulting for small firms (HIPAA and PCI compliant IT support) and often get SMS and emails from customers other than the one I'm currently at. While it would be possible to pull out my phone and read SMS and emails, I'm often in front of customers or otherwise in a position where it would be rude or even inconvenient to pull out my phone, but I need to know if a server at another customer has gone offline. By having my SMS and emails show on my (previously pebble, now Gear) smart watch I am able to save a non-trivial amount of time per day by just glancing at my watch instead of pulling out my phone.

This is a very specific use case though, and while I love that smart watches exist, once I get home the watch is taken off and set down next to my phone.

Which do you think is a bigger #, dollars spent improving working conditions in China or dollars spent advertising about improving working conditions in China?

Again: You have an old books of fallacies (Marx), we have history. You are wrong.

Has Barbara Hudson posted today?