|
Until the perpetrators are arrested we do not know. The fact that one person among the police speculates it was a revenge killing does not establish that as a fact. It is quite possible that it was revenge, and it is quite possible it was something else entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
Sour skittles or sour cherry blasters. I love both so much it has to be a draw. I don't eat chocolate. I can't stand more than a tiny bit of milk chocolate every once in a while. Sour warheads are also amazing. It's too bad your tongue hurts after stuffing every one from a bag into your mouth .
|
|
|
|
|
I too vary in my personal tastes, but Texas Folk is worthy of a go if you aren't familiar with it. Specifically Townes Van Zant...a good song to start with (imho) is Loretta. One of the most soothing lyrical songs I have ever heard.
|
|
|
|
|
I think Brazil could win because it's in their home continent and by far have some of the best players in the world e.g. Neymar (best winger), Marcelo (best left back), Thiago Silva (best Centre back) also they have won many world cups in the past as well so they also have a good history.
|
|
|
|
|
I spent 2 weeks in Copenhagen, Denmark and I was overly impressed. The "energy" there is amazingly positive, citizens use more bikes than cars, very environmentally conscious, very family oriented (lots of smiling moms and dads with super cute babies), and it's just a gorgeous city. I'd move there.
|
|
|
|
Yes, you are always very serious until you were shown to be wrong or can no longer make your point. Then come the posts with no other content aside from personal attacks and insults.
If you had to only post on topic, I tend to think your head would explode eventually.
Back to the topic. Would you support the change to the trafficking victims protection act cited in the article in order to allow these kids to be returned immediately? Do you think that your representatives will, or the president for that matter?
Depends entirely on what the bill says. Returned immediately under what conditions, under which agreements and guarantees by their own governments? Bills are debated and revised on the floor. But first they have to be brought to the floor! You are struggling with the facts. Obama wanted the House to pass comprehensive reform. The sticking point for the GOP is border security first because they do not trust the measures in any comprehensive bill will be done once they bill is passed. Now really, can you think of any reason..like maybe a dozen or more...why they should trust the guy who has told more lies than Pinocchio and only selectively enforces his own law and those already on the books? That bill would exactly zero to mitigate this border situation. Obama, hrumpting about that, is now going to use his phone and his pen to....um....er....uh....he'll let you know. And you're trying to make a "fact" out of the idioty that the president "has told more lies than Pinnochio and is not to be trusted".This is pointless. And you know what...it's going to continue to be pointless until and unless every single teabagging asshat is voted out on his can. |
|
|
|
Yes, you are always very serious until you were shown to be wrong or can no longer make your point. Then come the posts with no other content aside from personal attacks and insults.
If you had to only post on topic, I tend to think your head would explode eventually.
Back to the topic. Would you support the change to the trafficking victims protection act cited in the article in order to allow these kids to be returned immediately? Do you think that your representatives will, or the president for that matter?
Depends entirely on what the bill says. Returned immediately under what conditions, under which agreements and guarantees by their own governments? Bills are debated and revised on the floor. But first they have to be brought to the floor! |
|
|
|
Please, point me in the direction of where talks have occurred in which we declared point blank that these kids were being returned immediately and then those talks were followed up on to show that we are serious. I'm dying to see them.
Strawman. What I said (meant anyway) is that we are pursuing diplomatic solutions with these countries. I've read numerous accounts of American officials in talks with these south and central American countries. You're looking for simplistic 'solutions' (because really, you're a simpleton)...and you're not going to get any. Especially if your representatives don't represent anything except their party. If the goal is to change the rules so that these kids can be returned to their home countries immediately, I predict the right will be on board. Want to make any predictions about your side? Because if there's resistance to that rule being changed I don't think it's so crazy to predict that it comes from someone on the left, Jackie. And as the article linked in the OP points out, pushing for a change to this rule hasn't been Obama's focus at all. You forgot to add AFTER he VOTED AGAINST IT under Eisenhower. Your example, is one explanation of why our friends in the south seem to hate our federal government so much. It forces them to stop discriminating, forces them to allow Blacks to vote, and add to that, it allows Black and White folks to marry each other. Lawdy - no wonder they hate our government so!! What you think and predict does not really interest me sana, because I find you flippant and insincere. Never did really. And back to posts filled with only personal attacks. Shocking.If you're wondering what the president's focus was on, it was on blaming republicans. So there's that. Yes, only personal attacks. Well, except for that page I tried to seriously discuss this.Because really, the important thing is whether the president has actually deported approximately 2 million, or only approximately 1,678,392 depending on how they're counted. Don't you know. Now where's that emoticon. |
|
|
|
Please, point me in the direction of where talks have occurred in which we declared point blank that these kids were being returned immediately and then those talks were followed up on to show that we are serious. I'm dying to see them.
Strawman. What I said (meant anyway) is that we are pursuing diplomatic solutions with these countries. I've read numerous accounts of American officials in talks with these south and central American countries. You're looking for simplistic 'solutions' (because really, you're a simpleton)...and you're not going to get any. Especially if your representatives don't represent anything except their party. If the goal is to change the rules so that these kids can be returned to their home countries immediately, I predict the right will be on board. Want to make any predictions about your side? Because if there's resistance to that rule being changed I don't think it's so crazy to predict that it comes from someone on the left, Jackie. And as the article linked in the OP points out, pushing for a change to this rule hasn't been Obama's focus at all. You forgot to add AFTER he VOTED AGAINST IT under Eisenhower. Your example, is one explanation of why our friends in the south seem to hate our federal government so much. It forces them to stop discriminating, forces them to allow Blacks to vote, and add to that, it allows Black and White folks to marry each other. Lawdy - no wonder they hate our government so!! What you think and predict does not really interest me sana, because I find you flippant and insincere. Never did really. |
|
|
|
|
So much to be said about, and for LBJ. He was a mixed bag of the bad the good and the ugly like every president. The times shaped him as much as he shaped the times, as president. But by god, he did get the CRA passed, and that can never be taken away from him. Or co-opted by Republicans.
|
|
|
|
Please, point me in the direction of where talks have occurred in which we declared point blank that these kids were being returned immediately and then those talks were followed up on to show that we are serious. I'm dying to see them.
Strawman. What I said (meant anyway) is that we are pursuing diplomatic solutions with these countries. I've read numerous accounts of American officials in talks with these south and central American countries. You're looking for simplistic 'solutions' (because really, you're a simpleton)...and you're not going to get any. Especially if your representatives don't represent anything except their party. |
|
|
|
What you want wasn't what I asked you, and those things are being done already to the best we can do. I asked you what you are asking of your Rep. congressman...have you been in touch? Was "Please pass an immigration bill" - or at least bring one up for vote - anywhere in the communication? Once these people are HERE, there are complicated measures. You don't just pile them in rail cars and wave bye.
I disagree. We are not securing the border to the best of our ability, and I have seen no details about talks with these countries in which we are taking a hard stand and letting them know that these kids will be boomeranging right back home. And to your "you don't just pile them into cars and wave goodbye," apparently we do. Only we send them further into the United States rather than back to their country. Apparently bussing them to wherever we want them is not the problem. We're doing that now. We're just going the wrong way. You get so busy being smart alecky, counting nits to make some kind of 'score' (which escapes me, whatever you think you're scoring) that you don't seem to realize the nits are on a giant diseased rat....and is not named Obama. It's called Congress. The Republican congress. |
|
|
|
|
What you want wasn't what I asked you, and those things are being done already to the best we can do. I asked you what you are asking of your Rep. congressman...have you been in touch? Was "Please pass an immigration bill" - or at least bring one up for vote - anywhere in the communication? Once these people are HERE, there are complicated measures. You don't just pile them in rail cars and wave bye.
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism: A Love Story
This film makes you think. It makes you angry. It makes you want to do something, and that's okay. That is what a film is supposed to do. It is designed to evoke some sort of emotion and help spring it forth.
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit. Educate me. Which law(s) are you talking about? |
|
|
|
It's not the quantity, since the impact of any EO isn't equal in scope.
Please describe the quality that deserves such a lawsuit? |
|
|
|
You are simply wrong. They may cite other cases, but this was a statutory interpretation case, not a precedent-based or constitutional case. This would be true if the decision in a typical SCOTUS case was a simple "YOU WIN!" or "YOU LOSE!" But well, that's not how it works. Laws do not exist in vacuums, nor do interpretations and decisions based on them. In this case, the court very deliberately responds to the question of personhood for a for-profit organization, which is not defined in RFRA, for example. Regardless of what sort of silly semantic acrobatics you want to start playing here, it is a matter of fact that at least part of the court's decision was based on something other than a 1993 law. Ergo, you are simply wrong. QED. I don't think that judicial restraint and only deciding cases and controversies before you (the constitutional requirement, by the way) means that they have no balls. I think it means that you are seeing a retrenchment from an activist judicial philosophy that dominated the federal courts for years. There exists nonbinding precedence for various dicta for this very reason. Judges are in fact given the latitude to express their views in a variety of contexts. There are noncontroversial (cf. "judicial activism") avenues that can be used to provide guidance to lower courts without establishing binding precedence. Read the decision. It is based entirely on statutory interpretation. In fact, look at the opening line: "We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners." The so-called corporate personhood issue is also a statutory question which is resolved by reference to The Dictionary Act. |
|
|
|
The Founding Fathers on regulating corporations. 1. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin. 2. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” – Thomas Jefferson. “The power of all corporations ought to be limited, [...] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.” – James Madison The Founding Fathers on war. 3. “He who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.” – Thomas Paine: The Crisis No. V, 1797 4. “War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.” -Thomas Jefferson The Founding Fathers on liberalism. 5. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington The Founding Fathers on religion. 6. “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” ~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams 7. “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.” ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793 8. “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814 The Founding Fathers on taxes. 9. “As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine.” –= Alexander Hamilton: Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801 http://aattp.org/9-founding-fathers-quotes-that-will-make-conservatives-heads-explode/But when they go against the consent of the governed with a turd like Obamacare: "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..." I wonder if liberals understand that Jefferson was talking about what we know as the FederaL Reserve Bank, and issuing the fiat paper money we have today? Printing up paper money by the trillions and then using it to buy real wealth is the theft Jefferson was talking about, and the Fed has been doing it now for over a century. |
|
|
|
Earnings AND costs. The expense ratio of a typical screened fund is going to be over 1%. The expense ratio of an index fund can be as low as 0.05%.
Exactly. So it is absolutely possible if they have a high earning portfolio, I haven't taken a look at the current numbers myself so I can't compare all of the options that would have been available to them, but the Forbes article seemed to think that they were comparable in their expense ratio. Not the most solid of sourcing's, but once again, the only real thing to go off of that has thus far been presented. You are drawing the wrong conclusion. Returns are very hard to predict and control. About the only thing you can control are expenses. The trend in 401(k) fiduciary duty is toward minimizing expenses, not maximizing returns. This is especially true in large 401(k) plans because of the strong pattern of regression to the mean. |
|
|
|
Benjamin Franklin would ask us today “what are you doing for God’s sake??” Written by Allen West on July 4, 2014 On July 4, 1776, the greatest experiment in human liberty took shape. My passion for our Republic stems from a love of being blessed to live in an exceptional country and bear the simple title of American. I have seen many other countries and none beat the land of the “All night Denny’s and 7-11. These days, some feel America is what’s wrong with the world. I see an America that embodies what can be right with the world. In 238 short years we have achieved something that many have only dreamed of — a land where we “hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” When those words were written, no, it was not the prevailing reality. But, it was the hope of the writer, Thomas Jefferson, and that of the 55 other men who affixed their name. If those words had never been written, we would never have believed it possible — and we would never have achieved that goal. The Founding Fathers gave us a vision of what was possible in a land of opportunity. A place that simply said that it didn’t matter where you were born or from whence you came — here you could “be all that you could be.” All that was asked was a respect of the rule of law — our eventual Constitution. And what was given, with our consent, was a government chosen to represent our best interests — not self or special interest. And so here we are today. There is nothing wrong with America and the fundamentals for which she was established. What is wrong with America is the abandonment of those basic principles and a loss of respect and regard for the rule of law at the highest levels. What is happening with America is a lack of understanding our foundational values and precepts. What is happening in America is something that would cause those 56 men to shed a tear. However, I believe they would sit us down — especially ol’ Benjamin Franklin — and with a tinge of sarcastic wisdom he would simply ask, “what are you doing for God’s sakes?” Franklin would remind us of his challenge on that hot September day in 1787 that we have a Republic — if we can keep it. Here on this Independence Day in 2014, put down those hot dogs and hamburgers for just a moment to remember and honor the men, the 56, who pledged to give their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for your freedom and liberty today. Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/benjamin-franklin-ask-us-today-gods-sake/#X6BF04LfvcVFE2f7.99 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
