no idea what the journals credibility is either.
You've never heard of Nature?
no idea what the journals credibility is either.
You've never heard of Nature?
For years, we had a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Across the country, there are several states with Republican majorities in the legislature and in the governor's mansion. Yet, we don't have ID taught in schools. No state in the union, Republican or Democrat, teaches ID in the science classroom.
Now, this tells me two things:
1) Republicans are NOT anti-science.
2) People like you want to believe it so bad, that you will accept blatant lies against all evidence to the contrary, as the absolute truth. You then repeat them over and over again so that people just as deluded as yourself will believe it for the same bullshit reasons and repeat them again. It's as if you decide that you feel a certain way, in this case you hate Republicans, then, and only then, you go out looking for reasons to justify your hatred.
You've got to be kidding me. Never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? It doesn't happen because it is fucking ILLEGAL. It wasn't Democrats on that school board pushing for ID. You shouldn't put so many words in other people's mouths because you'll just end up with a foot in yours.
Actually, the problem is people like you who can't fathom that someone can believe in science AND faith. Of course, your statement would be true if every scientist gave up on their faith as soon as they became scientists, but that's not the case.
The problem is that people like him, as you say, are talking about fundamentalists. And you are making the argument that there are plenty of non-fundamentalist scientests out there. I fail to see the point of your argument.
companies like Red Hat (who doesn't even have a desktop distro, only a server one)
A childish "they do it too" doesn't make it right. Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia also aren't functioning democracies that claim to respect human rights and the rule of law, unlike Israel. Two of them are unapologetic monarchies for christ's sake, so what is your point? You have addressed nothing in my original comment.
Except it isn't. Would you like the UN meddling in US internal affairs? What if they 'recognized Puerto Rico as a full member? Not that we wouldn't kick em loose if they ever actually voted for independence but you see the point? The Territories are part of Israel and the UN has been hell bent on this project of erecting a new nation state inside their borders for decades now.
So the Palestinians are Israeli nationals then? You can't make an entire population stateless at the same time you control their territory. If they aren't Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian. or Palestinian, what right of citizenship do they have? It is interesting that you picked Puerto Rico because they have been given many chances to vote on their status. You can bet that if the Puerto Ricans wanted their own country, they would have it.
And yes, they are part of Israel. They were ATTACKED and they won that territory fair and square in war from their enemies who had to accept that in the cease fire agreements they all signed onto and in the cases of Egypt and Jordan they have actually signed full peace treaties and ended the war on those borders.
So now we have the following situation:
1) Israel controls territory it can't legally annex (for several reasons, all of which are complicated), and won't annex (for reasons which are equally complicated, one of which is mentioned below)
2) Regardless of their original status, Jordan and Egypt have renounced claims to the territory
3) Every people has the right to self-determination
I take it you would prefer to see the West Bank and Gaza simply annexed into Israel proper and their residents given full Israeli citizenship? The Fourth Geneva convention places strict limits on what rights can be denied to people living in annexed territory. Israel has no incentive to take an action which would instantly make the Jews into a political and demographic minority.
These are the two arguments I continually hear from Israel supporters and I don't think either stands to scrutiny. I'd really like a rational response to this because every time I bring this up with someone who supports Israel as much as you obviously do all I get is vitriolic and inane responses. I look forward to your reply.
Marbury v. Madison was settled in 1803. The horse isn't just out of the barn, the barn burned down in the 1860s and the horse has been dead for over 200 years.
Note to self: When becoming Leader of oil-rich country, put up thousands of GPS jammers in sparsely populated areas, and schools, hospitals and embassies.
And then after your country is bombed into the stone age anyway you will be prosecuted for war crimes. I know that if you put weapons on a hospital ship it becomes a legitimate military target, and GPS jammers are definitely considered weapons. In this case it is likely that the militarization of civilian areas would be considered a violation of various conventions against using human shields, or failing to protect civilians at the very least.
Since supposedly no federal money goes to that 10%,
It is 3%.
there is absolutely no reason that the aborting providing part of Planned Parenthood couldn't be spun off and relaunched as it's own independent division. I would have no problem funding Planned Parenthood at that point. So tell me, why won't Planned Parenthood do this? They could guarantee their funding and their new abortion spinoff would still provide all the abortions that they always have. So, answer the question; Why won't Planned Parenthood stop performing abortions?
1: Because it is legal.
2: Planned Parenthood is often the only legal way to get an abortion in some rural areas.
3: You already don't pay for any of that 3%.
Depends on WHY the abortion is performed. I follow the rape/endanger to the mother's life rule.
Sorry, that isn't what the law limits it to, and fortunately for the rest of us you aren't a dictator. You can try to get the constitution changed, but fighting over an issue this divisive in a budget bill is lunacy.
I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions in any way, shape or form.
Well good news for you, they don't.
I could say the same thing about some of the people on "your side". Maddow, Shultz, Matthews etc.
Saying "well they do it too" doesn't challenge his statement. But more to the point, you agree and don't care that "conservative" commentators are fact-challenged blowhards?
The DIFFERENCE, is that most on YOUR side want those on MY side off the air
I would argue what you would refer to as "liberals" simply want more objectivity in "conservative" opinion shows. Not that Shultz or Matthews aren't also fact-challenged blowhards (especially Shultz).
We let the FREE MARKET figure out which is best. From the ratings, I'm guessing more on MY side want to hear what "our" people are saying, than those on your side are saying. If your people are so good & honest, why are their ratings combined, lower than 90% of the people on our side? Hard to argue with ratings,
Indeed, ratings == quality, so American Idol must be the greatest show in the history of television. The fact is that comparatively speaking, very few people watch political opinion shows, regardless of political inclination. I would argue that conservative opinion shows are more engaging to their audience than liberal opinion shows are to theirs, hence the difference in total numbers.
which I suppose is why so many on your side, including some in the current administration, work so hard to try to get them knocked off the air.
You're going to need to cite that.
Oh, and as for Beck leaving his 5pm show on Fox, had you bothered to LISTEN, for the last year, he has pretty much without actually saying, he was leaving his daily show on Fox.
And I guess thats why you watch Glenn Beck in the first place if a statement like that makes sense to you. I'm sure that if Glenn Beck came out as gay you could go back and find many "hints" over the years if thats what you want to read into it.
Wow, does anyone here pay attention to the news anymore?
Under pressure from Republicans and concerned about the politics of relocating terrorism suspects to U.S. soil, Senate Democrats rejected President Obama's request for funding to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and vowed to withhold federal dollars until the president decides the fate of the facility's 240 detainees.
As recently as last week, Senate Democrats had hoped to preserve a portion of Obama's Guantanamo funding request. But their resolve crumbled in the face of a concerted Republican campaign warning of dire consequences if some detainees ended up in prisons or other facilities in the United States, a possibility that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has acknowledged.
"U.S. jails are typically for U.S. citizens," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "These are foreign terrorists, detained on the battlefield in the war on terror."
Congress controls the purse strings, remember?
Your original point is that the right to life is specifically guaranteed by the first amendment. The quote from Justice Jackson was part of a broader point about how fundamental rights should be beyond politics and does not support your argument. Here is the opinion: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
The Gobitis opinion reasoned that this is a field 'where courts possess no marked and certainly no controlling competence,' that it is committed to the legislatures as well as the courts to guard cherished liberties and that it is constitutionally appropriate to 'fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies rather than to transfer such a contest to the judicial arena,' since all the 'effective means of inducing political changes are left free.' Id., 310 U.S. at page 597, 598, 600, 60 S.Ct. at pages 1014, 1016, 127 A.L.R. 1493.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. [319 U.S. 624, 639] In weighing arguments of the parties it is important to distinguish between the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as an instrument for transmitting the principles of the First Amendment and those cases in which it is applied for its own sake. The test of legislation which collides with the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with the principles of the First, is much more definite than the test when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vagueness of the due process clause disappears when the specific prohibitions of the First become its standard. The right of a State to regulate, for example, a public utility may well include, so far as the due process test is concerned, power to impose all of the restrictions which a legislature may have a 'rational basis' for adopting. But freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect. It is important to note that while it is the Fourteenth Amendment which bears directly upon the State it is the more specific limiting principles of the First Amendment that finally govern this case.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette wasn't a fifth amendment case, and as such did not mention it except in the broader point as quoted above. The right to life is specifically protected by the fifth amendment, not the first.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think you have a reading comprehension problem.
You were originally talking about the first amendment, not the whole bill of rights. And I don't disagree with Justice Jackson.
The first amendment to the US constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I think you have some reading to do.
I would say that yes, you/we have no right to travel by car without restriction. For example, you can't drive on other people's lawns. You must have a valid drivers license. You must have car insurance. If you are under 18, you may not drive after curfew.
Way to miss the point.
Your car can also be searched at any time, without warrant.
Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.