Marx has identified Satan, the bourgeoisie in his telling, and promised heaven if people just purge Satan from their midst in an apocalyptic class-warfare meltdown. Amiright?
This is a comely tale for the crowd that has rejected Christianity, yet still needs at least an ersatz existential model.
Yet nothing I've seen thus far models the real existential model of the fallen individual who needs to be purged of sin and directed correctly, i.e., toward Christ.
Marxism is a nihilistic joke played by Satan himself, and you're a fool if you don't recognize it straight up.
Every political action of any consequence that has been taken in this country in the past several decades has been of a conservative - not progressive - slant.
Sure, there are more details than that, but I reject your notion that we've had any conservative Presidents, with a qualified exception for Reagan, who certainly didn't take these godforsaken entitlements out back and shoot them.
People love to hate Apple. It's a thing. Also, is there any evidence this data is not anonymised by Apple?
'Anonymised' is mostly a weasel word. It isn't always impossible; but the more interesting the dataset is, the more likely it is that there's a clever re-identification attack with good odds of success. If you are serious about preventing those, you tend to have to nuke the data so hard that they aren't of much interest anymore.
Unless robustly demonstrated to the contrary, it's an essentially worthless claim.
Furthermore, every conservative politician who has been trying to campaign against the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 has been campaigning to replace it with itself. This further supports the notion of Obama being deeply conservative in his actions - which are of course where his legacy will come from.
Alternatively, it supports the assertion that the country enjoys one party rule--The Progressive Party. Those understanding that this route only leads to European-style collapse, and opposing it, will be crushed.
In other words you are being disingenuous when you claim to have read it at all. Doesn't your Lord advocate humility and warn against being a braggart?
Oh, so I don't agree with you, and thus I'm being disingenuous?
Well, every generalization has its corner cases that require careful thought. So while I agree that trolling per se shouldn't be outlawed, there may be certain uses of trolling that should be criminalized.
Take the libelous component of cyberstalking. At the very least this could be an aggravating factor in impersonation. Also, the law already recognizes libel as wrong, but it requires the harmed person take civil action. The Internet exposes more people than ever to reputation harm, but not all those people have the money to hire a lawyer. Social media have created a whole new vista for defamation, much of which is *practically* immune from any consequences.
So I do not in principle object to a law that criminalizes *some* forms of defamation, particularly against people who are not protected by the current laws. But I'd have to look at the the specific proposed law carefully. Just because people *claim* a new law would do something doesn't mean it does, or that's all it does.
While I'm waiting for the corrected copy of Mars, Ho! to show up I've been working on another, Random Scribblings. It's a compilation of garbage I've littered the internet with for almost twenty years.
Can they be a little more specific as to what it is that's in the soda that is causing this?
You think a beverage that can be used to degrease objects is healthy ? Coca-Cola is about as effective a degreaser as you can find.
It's really good at cleaning stubborn water stains on toilets and sinks, too.
I gave three representative examples, two of which were connected. I could dig up more links but why bother when faced with PopeRatzo.
FTFY. Actually, never mind. They are mostly indistinguishable synonyms.