Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates; the man does his homework (and rather seems to enjoy it, in fact).
I dispute this is the case. In no event of which I'm aware did Dawkins dispute a point by way of insulting his interlocutor. Go ahead and find a few examples and I'll consider relenting. In short, "Citation needed."
So what is a state representative in an interior district of an interior state supposed to do about immigration policy exactly?
At best, the state house can decide what to do with those immigrants which are deemed illegal by federal law. Sure he has wiggle room there for some sort of policy. He could support draconian measures to kick everyone out or support "sanctuary" status for his jurisdiction. But really, Sean won't have much impact on this. The US Congress is where to go for that action.
The company alleged in its statement that Cablevision's Optimum Voicemail, Comcast's Digital Voice Voicemail and eBay's Skype Voicemail violate Klausner's patent by allowing users to selectively retrieve and listen to voice messages via message inbox displays.
The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.