And yet Article 1, Section 9 makes no distinction between civil and criminal. How did the 'precedent' (pronounced 'bullshit') get set that this only refers to criminal issues?
If what he said is true, then this is yet another (out of many) example of the courts 'creatively interpreting' (in other words, modifying it with invisible ink) the constitution.
Sure, it's a wikipedia link, but it's trivial to verify.
The underlying offense is the same. The law is written to play legalistic games.
Losing Eich is going to be the worst thing to ever happen to Mozilla, mark my words.
How is losing someone that thinks 20% of his employees are subhuman not a good thing? He hates his gay employees. He publicly admitted he is a Nazi that wants to steal their rights. He gave money to a cause that attacks them. Unless you are one of them, how can you defend his kind? Hopefully it won't be that many decades before society has progressed enough to put your kind behind bars to protect the rest of us from your intolerance.
20%? Got a citation for that, or just wishful thinking?
And yet Article 1, Section 9 makes no distinction between civil and criminal. How did the 'precedent' (pronounced 'bullshit') get set that this only refers to criminal issues?
BTW, can you be jailed for failing to pay the IRS? Makes me wonder how 'civil' that infraction is then...
Could you primitive screwheads stop dropping quotes?
<Jenny McCarthy>
My child didn't eat a tuna steak 5 minutes before he was diagnosed with autism!
</Jenny McCarthy>
-
It seems there's a portion of the population that will compulsively latch onto hear-say and pseudoscience nonsense and conspiracy theories, no matter what we do. Maybe we should just accept that. Just deal with it and make the best of things.
I've got this totally scientific evidence that autism is caused by the ink in lottery tickets. The ink doesn't affect adults, but the chemicals stick to your fingers. Then when you touch your kids the chemicals get absorbed through their skin and disrupt their developing brains. My kid was perfectly healthy one morning, and at a routine checkup that afternoon my child was diagnosed with autism! And the only thing that happened in between was that I bought lottery tickets and hugged by child! You can't imagine how devastating that is to a parent, unless of course you're a parent who bought a lottery ticket and immediately had their child diagnosed with autism.
Have the so-called "scientists" tested the lottery ticket ink? HELL NO! The government rakes in millions of dollars on lottery tickets! Scientists all want grant money (our money taken in taxes!) to do their research. And is the government going to give them money if the government doesn't like the results of that research! OF COURSE the scientists are going to be biased and tow the government line.
I am not anti-lottery-tickets.
I just want to reduce the ink and reduce the toxins. Lottery tickets are fine when the government proves that that new ink ensures no children will get autism.
If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want their kid to have autism, or whether they'd choose to pass up on a lousy lottery ticket, well duh they'll pass up on the lousy lottery ticket.
What parent would ever knowingly risk giving their child autism? It's unthinkable! It's just not worth the risk.
-
Don't you feel all rich and stuff?
If speech is money, he's spending like a drunken sailor.
Now will somebody please explain to me why people shouldn't listen to this particular celebrity but we should all listen to and shout hosannas to the rogue's gallery of celebrities James Cameron got to spout off in his global warming movie.
Because the percentage of scientists who say anti-vax is nonsense is within a rounding error of 100%,
and because the percentage of scientists who say global warming is real and serious is within a rounding error of 100%.
(Not that I know jack squat about James Cameron's movie, but the question was why one celebrity voice would be credible while another would not be. A celebrity who doesn't speak French, but who accurately recites a French dictionary, is backed by the full credibility of that dictionary.)
-
The tone was intended to be playfully humorous. I called you a "dick" for the sole purpose of invoking the "right and a dick" thing in a self-referential manner. "Whistling innocently" was my best effort to hang a guilty-of-mischief hat on it.
C'est la vie, c'est la internet.
-
No, I'm pretty sure the use of zealots here refers to those who are so fanatically devoted to their position that they'll inevitably drive people away from the truth, due to their overbearing assholishness.
Calling people "overbearing assholes" makes you a total dick.
FWIW, it is possible to be right without being a dick about it.
::whistles innocently and wanders away::
-
I know nothing about the merits (or lack of merits) of a "European schedule" vs any other schedule, but reading your post all I can think is...
People are screaming that flowers attract fairies and fairies are eating children's brains, to which you reply:
"Just plant European bushes outside the schools. European flowers don't attract fairies."
-
depends what side of the pond your on... though Palin always struck me as more retarded than constructively evil.
Agreed. That Spanish Inquisitor fellow never could do anything right.
Did somebody say "the Spanish Inquisition"?
"Except when governments are involved"
Get out of the basement. Read more widely. Go enjoy some clean, unlimited tap-water. And marvel at the magical process that keeps it that way.
It's pretty clear that someone with that kneejerk response would only be interested in rainwater and grain alcohol, Mandrake.
Hey, you hurt my feelings. I thought I always got a hat tip in the 'known and admitted trolls' category.
egrep -n '^[a-z].*\(' $ | sort -t':' +2.0
