Or 90%, or 80% or 70% or ... well, this year, it's actually hardly effective at all.

You know what the most reliable outcome of the annual distribution of flu vaccines actually is? Pharmaceutical company profits. For companies with total blanket immunity from law suits or prosecution for ANY ill effects from those vaccines.

"Society" is not a thing, it does not have rights. Individual people have rights, including the right to associate (or not) with other people. When you create some arbitrary definition of a collective and give it rights over individuals, you are on the road to tyranny. You split people into collectives, create nationalism, start wars over it, etc.

Actually, it's only for criminal trials. Civil trials are decided on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence."

Well, first, you're responding to the wrong person. I assumed you were trying to say something insightful about the law. Unfortunately it's just more of the same partisan drivel.

I get there are many people happy about the ACA, and they like justifying all the bad things that have been done in the past six years with deflection about how it "Not as bad as the Iraq war", etc. Hard to argue with that, which I guess is why it's used, but of course the ACA is bad law, for many reasons, but most compelling is that the costs are far greater than the benefits. But that's what happens when the "leaders" have clearly stopped representing the people, and the only goal is power, through whatever means possible.

You can dismiss the Constitution by looking at the founders through the lens of modern culture if you like, but frankly considering the way countries were run in the rest of the world at the time, it was a vast improvement. And it's still law. If somethings wrong with it, there are provisions for changing it. But frankly the biggest problem is that Congress puts a lot of effort into getting around it, not following it. ACA and bi-annual NDAA are no different in that regard.

Excellent point. To sound like a professional, you have to say "That's not in our wheelhouse."

So, what, you're fixing it for free? Or just laughing and saying "Yea, that sucks for you!" and walking away?

That can't be - I use @Declare statements in my T-SQL code all the time!!!

That's not necessarily true (depending on how you define "cheap" hosting services). You may have to shop around a bit, but I've found that most commodity hosting services support at least Zend opcache, or they can support php 5.5, which includes opcache out of the box.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

WTF does that have to do with Obamacare?

It's a "success" if you love the businesses that got TARP money, but a massive failure if you don't. Most businesses that fuckup on such a massive scale end up bankrupt, with assets going up for fire sale prices to people that did NOT fuckup. The fact that most of those businesses also fucked over a lot of OTHER people before getting their massive capital infusion (which they parleyed into even greater profits).

You must be new here...

I'd recommend staying away from those web pages if I were you. It'll be used as a malware distribution center as soon as it shows up on the results of some script kiddie's vulnerability scanner.

Yes, it's a plan to fix education. It hasn't worked in the public schools, which just keep getting worse, so they're basically going to add 2 more years of grade school to your "free" education, and hope that's enough.

True. (Not everyone will agree).

This is actually false, and if you pay close attention to the details of the study, you'll see it's not even at the top of the #1 reason for filing bankruptcy. FactCheck has some discussion of the issue, citing other studies and how the Hardvard one lumped "medical bills" along with other issues, including job loss.

This certainly true on its face, but could be construed as false by omission, and implies less restrictions on Federal laws than the Constitution actually provides. The relevant text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - so not only can they not establish a religion, they cannot make law "respecting" any religious establishment, that is, any organized church cannot be given any special dispensation at all, and, further, any religious practice cannot be interfered with. Of course, Congress has violated that one many times, probably most famously by such things as banning peyote from Native American's traditional religious practices. Ironically, the First Amendment's admonition was intended to protect people that designed their own religious practices outside of the established religions - a highly valued right with origins Colonial America's protestant value system. Yet the Native American Church was established in order to petition for protection of the use of peyote by its members. So in practice, recognizing the use of peyote by members of established religion, but not by individuals, is the opposite of the original purpose.

Sorry, fucker, if I didn't give you the whole history of this. He was a Democrat, resigned while he was under indictment and facing felony charges, then he got this miracle-out-of-the-blue plea deal that let him plead to a misdemeanor instead. At that point, they had already called for a special election to fill his vacated seat, and it was too late to file as a Democrat because they had already put a candidate on the ballot. So he got on as an "Independent" instead. He's a far-left Democrat, but worse, he's a piece of shit out for only himself. This is just the latest story of someone he fucked - literally this time, figuratively most of the time.