What we got was a fighter that can't dogfight, a strike aircraft with a pitifully small payload, and the political impossibility of starting over from scratch.
Sounds about right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What is unusual about Greece is that the GDP per capita has fallen for the past 6 years, under the fiscal policies imposed by the IMF.
That's one hell of an assumption -- if you're claiming their policies are the reason Greece is suffering such a fate, why didn't all the other countries that had to implement similar policies to receive loan backstops also go in the tank?
Isn't that exactly how women gained the right to vote? It wasn't the immediate interpretation of the amendment, but that's what the eventual ruling was based on.
If that was true, it wouldn't have required a separate Amendment (19th).
how does life, liberty or property equal marriage? not just gay marriage. Marriage for anyone?
The liberty to marry.
And what about the liberty to drink and drive? Or the liberty to gamble as a teenager? Or the liberty to build a giant blockade in the middle of a major freeway? There is literally nothing in your hand waving statement there that would prevent this ruling from invalidating all state laws and devolving us to anarchy. And it's because you're interpreting the Constitution wrong. The "liberty" clause doesn't mean the Constitution grants you the right to whatever the hell you want. It means the govt can't lock you up and throw away the key without cause. This was a poor judicial decision -- marriage is not a fundamental right of the Constitution and the only reason this was passed was because of a previous bad decision in Loving. Precedent is a dangerous thing was an early decision was the wrong one.
Nope. Still wrong. If something is a "right" then how can a state government (or a city government) declare that it is NOT a right? Even if the majority in that state/city says so? Your Rights are not subject to majority approval.
Except they are. And that's why you can't own a cruise missile. And why you can't drink and drive. If marriage was enumerated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it would be a different conversation, but it isn't. Which means the States have every right to pass law on the issue.
You might learn that our Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of our GOVERNMENT. It was NOT written as a list of the "fundamental rights" of the citizens. You have it BACKWARDS. The citizens grant the government certain rights. NOT the government granting the citizens certain rights (such as who can marry whom).
You're very confused. The Constitution is a check on federal power. The _federal_ powers are supposed to be limited (leaving whatever remains to the States, and then the people). If this wasn't true, anarchy would be the result. The manner in which the 14th is currently being applied would make all manner of things illegal: why aren't rich people entitled to Welfare? Why can't childless people get child tax credits? The Equal Protection clause is meant to ensure the same laws apply to everyone, nothing more. So no matter who you are, you're entitled to Welfare if you meet the criteria. And you're entitled to child tax credits, if you meet the criteria. There was no law on the books, federal or otherwise, granting carte blanche marriage. Marriage is not an enumerated Constitutional right. It's cut and dry. It was the wrong decision. And so was Love.
It would be really, really bizarre if the deniers are right, as they simply can not explain the warming. They have no models, no data, nothing. If they are right, water stopped behaving as we've known it to for centuries, right about the time of the industrial revolution. That means we'd need to figure out why water only misbehaves when it is part of the world's climate or in politically sensitive areas, as it's still behaving precisely as we'd expect it to in every other instance. That water has a grasp of politics and economics would be quite a shake-up!
What an ironic statement, considering that until just recently, all those 100% certain scientists were completely oblivious that water would act as a giant heat sink for the planet's heat. Gotta love those models.
Just about everyone? No one likes the complexity of the tax system, but very very few people support the flat tax when they understand the ramifications.
What ramifications? Are you assuming that the only possible flat-tax that could pass is a vanilla regressive tax with no prebate? FairTax (which I believe is the most widely supported flat tax proposal) accounts for the regressive nature of flat taxes in its model.
Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views.
Except that he already proved otherwise. In votes. For 30 years. He's going to leave it to the states, where it belongs, his own opinions on the issue be damned. Doesn't it mean anything to you that despite being staunchly pro-life and likely anti-same-sex-marriage as well, he won't actually support federal legislation to try to force those beliefs upon voters? That means a great deal to me and makes me respect him as a politician. I'm tired of people that try to legislate based on their view of what the world should be rather than based on what our system of governance is + what their constituents want.
I pointed out that Ron Paul is a creationist
How is that relevant? How he votes is all that matters. As politicians go, he was as consistent as they come from a libertarian standpoint. Neither religion nor Republican dogma drove his votes.
For example jumping to the instant assumption that the author is prophesying the end of the world is a classic denialist trick to distract from actual discussion, and to discredit the science by trying to discredit an unrelated argument.
Trick? What trick? Doom and gloom is the default case for these discussions (See IPCC report "2.2.4 Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change"). We're already moving in a renewables direction. Since 2007, renewables have slowly been eating into fossil fuels and becoming more cost-effective with every passing year. Of their own momentum. As are hybrid/electric vehicles. Which is why there needs not be a discussion, unless the adoption rate isn't occurring fast enough. That very concept of "not fast enough" implies urgency, which implies "end of the world/catastrophic" type scenarios. It's not like it's a huge derailment of logic. Between the dialogue and the agenda, in light of what's already occurring in the sector, it's a reasonable conclusion.
I see the opposite. Alot of conservative opinions are knee-jerk simplistic stances. To use your example, raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. Anyone can follow that "logic", unfortunately, it doesn't hold up in the real world.
And you see the same simplistic breakdown on the liberal side. The assumption is that that "minimum wage == more wealth for the poor person", as if money grows on trees. In reality, the additional expense has to be dealt with. A liberal just assumes the company owner is going to eat the loss out of their profits. In the real world, these expenses will either be pushed through to the consumer via increased product costs or pushed through to the workforce via reduced benefits or labor reductions. And that says nothing of the macro-level effects (such as inflation, or the ripple effect on other jobs). The end result of minimum wages is actually very heavily debated among economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences) and far from the "automatic win" advocates pretend it is.
Too many people either can't or won't analyze things, they are more interested in a catchy argument that "sounds" right, but breaks down in the real world.
That I'll fully agree with. I see it on both sides, quite frequently.
Or maybe they cheat 20 different ways, and they only got caught on one. Maybe they really suck when they stop cheating entirely.
There's some truth to that. For instance, the "grey territory" that is exploiting the wide receiver eligibility reporting is borderline cheating as well (http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Owners-Pass-Ban-On-Patriots-Ineligible-Receiver-Trick/aa52588d-47ff-4b0b-9bf5-65d759694c93). Although not explicitly illegal in 2014, it was shady enough to warrant a ban this year.
Keep up with the story. They've already released the type and size of the knife, and that knife is not illegal in Baltimore. The arrest was almost certainly illegal.
Not sure you've been following the story either, because the legality is still up in the air (http://www.wbaltv.com/news/officer-files-motion-contending-gray-arrest-was-legal/32824182). And "grey-zone" territory like this has come up before in Maryland, so this is nothing new: