To be fair, they did not have a way to test those ideas, and once they did, they fell out of favor.

While the common sailors may have feared falling off the edge of the earth, the debate with Columbus and others was just how big around the earth was.

You are phrasing it backwards.

The mother fetus null test would have been stated as:

No substances not native to the mother can pass from the mother to fetus.

Then the test would prove that statement wrong.

"Clouds are an optical illusion"

and fly drones into it disproves it.

See how this works?

You must be from Washington DC, where logic has been outlawed and argument for argument's sake is a local pastime.

There is only one possible logical reference to slavery here: ownership of another human being.

Looks like you solved how to keep the manual labor busy....

"I'm not sure it's really appropriate to refer to everyone in the bottom 50% as "the poor", that seems overly broad, but the rest of your point has some merit."

Not what I said, nor does it violate the logic:
Not everyone making less than $50000 is poor.
All the poor make less than $50000

Nor did I say they lower 50% did not pay their fair share, that was your assertion, and does not match with my stated Republican leanings that want to reduce taxes.

I go back to my original post that we want to lower taxes, but are accused of only reducing taxes on the rich.

To which I say that is technically true, as they are the only ones paying significant taxes, therefore any tax reduction that passes will impact the rich the most by definition.

You are kitchen sinking and mixing taxes.

The discussion on Federal Income tax (federal tax burden in my OP) is not based on wealth but on income.
State taxes tend to be less progressive, even here in California.

AS for the calculation, you are not taking into account benefits such as SSI, Food Stamps, etc, that the poor receive as part of the redistribution of taxes.

You are taxed on income, not wealth.

Just because you don't get into a war of words with people who buy ink by the barrel, not because reporters are special.

It is a little more grey than you think:
"If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place. "

Methinks an officer would object on principle... he does not want to be recorded.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...

and this is very interesting read too:

http://www.videomaker.com/arti...

and this:
http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-...

Although a credentialed reporter is going to get more leeway than an average citizen.

When the DEC Alpha was killed, many of the engineers were picked up by AMD.

I want it made clear, as some jurisdictions, such as California, consider it wiretapping if you record voice without the other person's consent, even in public.

It is already the case, it is called Spoliation of Evidence.

IRS found that out when they "lost" the emails ordered turned over. They discovered that a prosecutor did not even have to prove it was intentional, it is presumed to be intentional if it happens after the request is made.

Suddenly, those emails are just rilly rilly hard to find, not lost.

It is, as the IRS is finding out about missing emails.

Too fucking bad police.

If you want us to give up our rights so you can protect the greater society at large... you will do what we fucking want you to do.

Or are the wrong person for the job, go do something else.

Disabling the camera would be Spoliation of Evidence, and is a crime in most places.

That is an odd argument. If you suppress a state right, you oppress all the citizens of that state.