Now that we are searching for evidence of this hologram, and may be close to establishing something approaching 'proof', won't the folks projecting the hologram alter the program to make it more difficult for us to determine if we are living in a hologram and thus negate our findings which will lead us to do more research and in turn cause the hologram to be changed again? Rinse and repeat.
As to the 'continue anyway' button not working, I found the same thing so I did a right-click, Open in new Tab and got in.
If Yahoo keeps pulling this shit, I won't use them any more other than to comment on their stories which say, "Look at [some random star] in her hot dress!" which they insist on sticking in a Flash format.
Don't tell that to some of the people on here who will immediately whine, "But this version fixes bugs and closes vulnerabilities. Don't you think about the children?"
It's the same thing with XP. It's a great OS which satisfies the needs of 80% of the users on the planet, yet people will whine about them not jumping all over W7.
Just because something's new doesn't make it better.
Considering over $1 TRILLION was spent bailing out the banks and Wall Street, that doesn't seem too bad.
There are some amazing evangelists for global trade because there are some that truly believe this to be the path to world peace
That'd be funny if it weren't such a serious issue. It's exactly what people said during the first so-called great age of free trade (late 19th and early 20th centuries). People were saying that in 1913. By 1914, WWI had thoroughly disproved the theory.
They've been telling me that trickle down economics works, too. Still haven't seen the money trickling down. Money ain't brown, anyways, not in the US...
to crimes about aiding foreign powers
Irrelevant since even selling weapons to terrorists that had killed over a hundred US Marines less than a year before was not enough to make it difficult for Oliver North to get a new government job requiring a high security clearance. There are no "real consequences" down that road.
They had to do the paperwork first to clear him of his felony convictions. It's called a 'presidential pardon'. And I consider its useage in this instance to have been an impeachable offense, but nobody was paying attention til the ink was dry.
Tell it to Obamacare. A blatantly unconstitutional law.
Actually, you might want to read it sometime. Granted, it'll take you awhile. But the main point of Obamacare is insurance company reform. Some great stuff in there. And yes, it is constitutional in that it regulates corporations. Even the right-wing Supreme Court says it's constitutional.
The DNC just said that presidental appointments no longer need 60 votes, it only needs 50. There is nothing stopping them from doing the same with treaties.
We have gotten to the point where the two parties no longer prevent each other from doing stupid things, if the House is not involved the DNC can do whatever they want. Glad you all voted the way you did in order to make this possible!
No, you need 51 votes to consider an appointee. That's a simple majority. You can't filibuster the nomination portion of the appointment process anymore. If the nominee gets their 51 votes, it goes into the hearings phase, then when the confirmation hearings are done, it comes up for a vote that you need the supermajority of 60 votes. What was happening was, certain people were filibustering the appointees at the nomination phase, keeping a vote from attaining the 60 needed at that time to go to confirmation hearings.
So this is like, "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." Got it.
Explain how it is hyperbole to state one is treated like a criminal when trying to board a plane when:
- You can't walk up to a ticket counter and pay for your ticket with cash
- A background check is run on you by the government when you purchase your ticket
- You have to remove articles of clothing to prove you aren't carrying something dangerous on the plane (leaving out the fact that a stainless steel pen makes a very handy weapon as do hands and fingers)
- You can only bring small quantities of items such as toothpaste, water and other items on board the plane
- The passenger list is sent to the government before the plane leaves to see if you're part of a criminal organization which means your entire history is checked (which is different than the above listed entry)
- You can be placed on a no-fly list for any reason whatsoever without a viable recourse to get off the list AND which the government will deny you are said list but still won't let you fly and won't give a reason why you can't fly
Now it's your turn. Explain how anything I just mentioned is either not a fact or hyperbole as it relates to one being treated like a criminal when attempting to fly.
At which point we go back to the courts and show that the activist Republican Justice John Roberts was wrong in declaring this a tax since it raises no revenue and that the government cannot force people to hand over money to private companies. Problem solved.
This was never about people getting health insurance. This was about making sure those who have chosen not to take personal responsibility for themselves can leech off everyone else without changing their ways. If the President truly wanted to make us all healthier, he would have pushed for higher taxes on tobacco products, forced people to undertake exercise to keep their weight down and would have gone full bore against drug dealers.
But he didn't. Instead, he took the easy way out and made everyone a ward of state by making sure they have to keep paying and paying and pay some more for the above mentioned people without the ability to exercise conscientious objector status like the religious wackos do every time the issue of abortion or contraceptives come up. If they don't want to pay for abortions or contraceptives because of their beliefs, why can't I not pay for the medical costs of smokers, the obese, alcoholics and drug users? Those are just as much choices as a woman taking contraceptives or having an abortion.
to whine about an injustice
Thank you for confirming this is an injustice.
Except it's not a tax since it raises no revenue. It's a government mandate that I hand over my money to a private company. How is that a tax?
Then I guess they shouldn't have tried to steal someone else's property.
It's like when someone tries to steal copper wire and gets electrocuted. It might seem harsh to some (not me), but if they hadn't been trying to steal, they wouldn't be dead.
Yet somehow I don't have the free will to not hand over my money to private companies because if I don't, the money will be forcibly extracted from my bank account.