You are misinformed. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution was already ratified and in effect before the Bill of Rights were passed.

The Constitution was ratified in 1787, in effect in 1789, and the Bill of Rights were passed in 1791. See here for more information
.

I don't think that users get to directly communicate with other users who "liked" something, but they do still have a way to communicate their spam. If you like "The Big Bang Theory", and then whoever owns "The Big Bang Theory" account makes a post, everyone who "liked" it sees it in their news feed and can comment on it. So the spammers just wait for companies to post something, and then they can spam the conversation. That's the best I can see it would do for them.

Looks like I'm safe!

Well, I just went to the link in my post, which worked. I then looked in the second paragraph, and followed the link "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment", and that also worked for me. I don't know why it's not working for you. Either way, I'm sure you can easily search for it.

Try reading up about the 14th Ammendment, and how it applies to the first ammendment. Here, let me help you out. Read the second paragraph, and you can follow the links therein to see how things are applied.

Your math is off a bit. 6000 pennies is 15,000 grams, not 150,000 grams. So your 330 pounds is more like 33 pounds, which means that it takes around 60 months, or five years to save a "ton" of money.

It is not debatable that it is the rule. You may debate whether or not you think the rule makes sense, or whether or not you like the rule, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the rule. Calling out someone for using "Your" instead of "You're," when you clearly understood what they meant, is being pedantic. If you're going to be pedantic, at least follow all the rules, not just the ones with which you agree.

If you're going to be pedantic, at least get your punctuation correct. The period goes inside the quotation mark.

It's called a run-off election. In most countries that have multiple parties, unless one candidate already got an absolute majority, there is a second election between the top two candidates, so that someone has to win by an absolute majority.

It could easily be extended to more rounds, where the least popular candidate is eliminated in each voting round until there is an absolute majority for one candidate, but it's usually simpler to just take the top 2 winners and have one more election between them.

You can't be charged with "receiving stolen property" or "posession of stolen property" unless you actually knew (or had a reason to suspect) that it was stolen. Otherwise, you're a victim of fraud because you were fraudulently sold goods.

Wrong. You can get the numbers from my previous post, but FY2008 (Bush) was just barely over $1T deficit, and FY2009 (again, Bush) was almost $1.9T. Obama's first deficit (FY2010) was around $1.65T. You are highly misinformed, please attempt to do some actual research before posting numbers.

To clear things up for you, the President submits his budget proposal in February of a year, which takes effect in October of that year, and the name of the budget is for the next year (i.e. a propsal in Feb 2009 taking effect in Oct 2009 is the FY2010 budget). Since Obama took office in Feb 2009, his first budget was the FY2010 budget. He got stuck with the worst budget in history and has reduced it every year since he took office.

You are incorrect. Obama came into office on January 20, 2009. By the first Monday in February, the President must submit his budget request (Congressional Budget Act of 1974). That budget takes effect starting October 1. So FY2009 was already well in effect. The FY2009 Budget was proposed to Congress by George W. Bush on Feb 4, 2008.

According to the Treasury Department, the debt ending Sept 30, 2008 was just over $10T. The debt ending Sept 30, 2009 was just over $11.9T. So the last budget from George W. Bush was almost $1.9T deficit, an increase of over $800B from the previous year. Obama's first budget (FY2010) ending on Sept 30, 2010, gave us an overall debt of just over $13.5T. That means the deficit from his budget was just over $1.65T, which is LESS than the almost $1.9T from Bush. In fact, it was a net reduction in deficit of $233B.

So yes, the GP post was correct that Obama inherited the largest deficit in history, and the deficit has decreased each year since Obama came into office. In fact, someone was nice enough to go through all the data from the Treasury Department website and show a breakdown of the numbers to make it easy to see how the budgets/deficits have changed over time.

No, anti-trust has nothing to do with preventing companies from becoming a monopoly. Being a monopoly is NOT illegal. Using your monopoly power to drive a competitor out of business or to add artificial barriers to entry into a market -- those are illegal. There are also acts that are illegal because they are anti-competitive even if there is no current monopoly. But anti-trust is not anti-monopoly.

So if Iran puts enough mines that it's no longer navigable, does it cease to be called a strait?

You are incorrect. Jury trials (including civil) almost always require unanimous decisions. Some jurisdictions allow for a verdict to be returned even if one, two, or three jurrors dissent. If both sides agree, then the requirement for unanimous verdict can be loosened, but in this case, Microsoft did not agree.

For more reading, see Wikipedia's article on jury trials, in the sections labeled "Civil trial procedure". Also, note that from the original article, "During jury deliberations, Motz [the judge] asked lawyers on both sides whether they would agree to accept a verdict that wasn't unanimous to avoid a mistrial. Microsoft's lawyers refused."