jcd11235

I have another question. If a gay marriage is legal in some states, but not others, how do those rights translate between states? Exempli gratia, two citizens of California fly to Vermont and get married, then return to California to reside. They have a legal and valid marriage license from the state of Vermont. 1. If one goes to the hospital, does the other one automatically get next-of-kin status (assuming they come in with marriage license as proof)? 2. Are they allowed to renew a California driver's license to share the same last name? I mean without having to legally change names again in California? I expect to see passed state constitution amendments challenged in federal court on the grounds that they are a violation of Article IV Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. and paragraph 1 of Amendment 14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/indent Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Excellent commentary on the 912 Project Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Rebuttal of global warming deniers' argument: If warming on Mars and Titan are to be considered evidence that man may not be a contributing factor of earth's global warming, why have only six planets or moons, out of over 100 bodies, been observed to be warming? Why have some planets been observed to be cooling? It appears you don't understand the concept of a positive feedback loop. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No...it was cowardly. Wow. There's nothing like quoting my words completely out of context in order to change the meaning from what I actually said. Personally, I do not believe anyone who is willing to die for their cause, whether I believe in their cause or not, to be a coward. I am reminded of a line from the movie Troy: "You are my enemy tonight, but even enemies can show respect." From The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 by Ron Suskind by Ron Suskind: At one 5p.m. meeting in April, Buzzy Krongard raised the issue of "what have we learned to this point, and what might we do differently?" What had they learned? "There was a grudging professional admiration for how hard these guys were," Krongard recalled later. "They were real soldiers. They went through hell, and gave up very, very little." Apparently, you missed the point of my post, if you think that's what I said or meant. The brilliance had nothing to do with innocent lives being taken. The brilliance has to do with mounting a major attack against a superpower primarily on that superpower's dime. No. It just indicates that you are not looking at the event objectively. Your looking at it emotionally. One need not agree with someone's actions to recognize excellent planning and execution. Enemies are not defeated by pretending they are weak, incompetent cowards. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No. Every time I look for such a relation, logic gets in the way. I have to parse that. So if you don't see a relation, then you agree? I agree with the other poster's assertion that there is an important difference between not believing in a god and believing that no god exists. Believing no god exists implies not believing in a god. However, not believing in a god does not imply believing no god exists. Apparently I also agree with logic. Thus, to answer your question, yes, I agree, just not with you. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No. Every time I look for such a relation, logic gets in the way. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

A planet that is warming and a planet that is cooling counter anthropogenic global warming on a third planet, earth, counters that claim how, exactly? Uh, no, I never said such a thing. Is that an typical example of how well you read my posts, or an indication that you're out of valid, relevant comments? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

yes it is - the semantics you put up there are meaningless There can be, and often is, a huge difference between not believing in a god and believing there is no god. Do you really not see it? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's a fair and relevant observation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I see. That implies you you just chose to ignore the facts when writing your post. Fair enough. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Correct. But the argument you are attempting to counter is not, in fact, being presented by those who acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Please, feel free to prove me wrong. Link to some climatologists who are claiming that man is causing global warming on other planets. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nor have I. My post did not imply any such thing, either, so … Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Kneejerk much? It's a perfect analogy when you look at the hypocrisy of what the Goreacle® preaches and how he lives/conducts business. When Gore quits using more energy than any half-dozen of his neighbors, let me know. When he starts exclusively using teleconferences instead of jetting around the globe, let me know. Getting the picture, yet? You clearly missed the points of my post, which addressed the issues you bring up in your reply. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Of course you are; it's one of your favorite strawmen. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Did you completely miss the point, or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing? No one is suggesting that we do anything about natural influences. That's not even a creative strawman. Definite loss of creativity points. It's amazing how much irrational hatred of Clinton has spilled over onto Gore. However, you managed to bring up the blow job cliché while expressing said hatred, so you get bonus creativity points here. I guess, overall, your creativity score is about average. Do you see how your stealthy and witty Slick Willy got a blowjob cliche use and your lame strawman example balance each other out w/r/t a creativity score? That's a little bit like how cap and trade energy policy works, too. It's also how Gore is able to be approximately carbon neutral. I fail to see the hypocrisy you've implied. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Are you suggesting that the US government was overthrown sometime between 1863 and today? Somehow, I think the history books might have mentioned that. It also would be unlikely that we would still have three branches of the federal government operating according to the Constitution as we (still) do today. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

1789 < 1863 < 2009 Hmmm … looks like the same government to me. I will grant you that different people hold office now, but the government is the same. Of course, Amendment 17 provided direct election of Senators, so I suppose the government is even more "by the people" than it was when Lincoln gave his most famous speech. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Hey, buddy, I've got a nice bridge for sale... Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. Somehow, I suspect your claim about having a bridge for sale is as genuine as your understanding of the US government. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And they would still be relying on other countries. By doing it themselves, they free themselves from some of that reliance. I don't see it as reckless at all. 1. As has already been pointed out, reasonable alternatives were not available. 2. Yet, Japan was still prepared for the worst case (which did not, in fact, happen) 3. See number 1. Unfortunately, what you figured out doesn't have much semblance to reality. Launching a communications satellite is not the same as launching an offensive weapon, and should not be treated as such. Not at all. One can be fully aware that a project offers dual use potential without having any intentions that aren't benevolent. At least that's what the west, with their overabundance of paranoia, will believe. Why the double standard? Remind me again when North Korea attempted to wipe Israel off the map. Or are you sensationalizing paranoia? Do you even know who the current leader of Iran is? Hint: It is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I'm sorry. I didn't realize the middle east was currently enjoying peace. Or are you claiming that North Korea is not currently at war? Personally, I think a nuclear weapon is one of the least likely potential WMD that we might see from any developing country. The expense is simply too high. (Besides, I seem to recall some guy from our ally Pakistan already making nuclear weapons available for sale.) When al Qaeda attacked on 9/11, they used our planes. They used our training facilities. They lost very few of their own lives compared to the number of enemy (from their perspective) lives taken. It was brilliant military strategy. Sun Tzu would have been proud. They utilized their enemies resources in order to conserve their own, as much possible. Furthermore, they elicited a reaction from our leaders that served to strengthen their own numbers, while draining the US treasury. If one is to believe OBL's claim that his goal was to destroy the US economy, it would appear his strategy has been an overwhelming success. The point is, our enemies aren't foolish enough to take us on head to head. They're well aware that we are the favorites to win any such confrontation. They also are very unlikely to spend big bucks to accomplish something that could be done on the cheap. A nuclear weapon doesn't fit that criteria well. On the other hand, if a country were to go to war, satellite communications could prove to be critical. Of course, that doesn't mean a communications satellite launch indicates North Korea plans to go to war with anyone else; a communications satellite certainly could be used benevolently by a developing (or developed) country. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not sure what country you live in, but in America, where I live, the government is the people. Since Obama is the President of the US, you don't need to worry about the government getting profits while the people get the shaft. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Right, which is one of the reasons Star Wars is is a waste of money. If if it worked reliably, every single time, it only protects us from a particular delivery method, not the weapon itself. The flip side to that is when a country writes a national foreign policy as though they are a paranoid schizophrenic, that nation risks carrying out a military attack under false pretenses, serving no purpose except spending several hundreds of billions of dollars, and killing countless civilians, and guaranteeing the creation of more enemies. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So how bad do you think the debt will be if they decide to vaporize a city? That missile if 100% operational is design to reach far enough to hit Alaska. That means around a 3500 mile range. A launch from the DPRK could reach Alaska and almost Pearl Harbor. Whats even worse is that a launch from north western Iran could go as far as Iceland. How do you think the world market would react if Paris, Berlin, or London disappeared under a mushroom cloud? How bad would the debt get then? Do you really think that a missile is the only delivery mechanism for a nuclear attack? The best defensive policy for the US is to attempt to improve relations with our current enemies while actively trying to not create new ones. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps they would like to establish their own satellite phone network, so that they do not need to rely on other countries for communications. Wow. I didn't realize you had a source of information high in the North Korean government. That's impressive. Are they still going to keep you in the loop after you give out their secrets on a skydiving forum? Or maybe they feel that a Mutually Assured Destruction strategy is their best chance of not being invaded by the US for some trumped up reason. Does it scare the hell out of you that the US utilizes technology that could be used for less than benevolent purposes? There's very little technology that could not be used to further bad intentions. That's no reason to withhold technology from developing nations or make other attempts to keep them from developing such technologies themselves. Or even launching a communications satellite -- oh, the horror! Remind us again which countries have used nuclear weapons on civilian populations. Surely a country that has demonstrated their willingness to take such actions should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic. I didn't realize that you actually believed that humans are causing temperatures to rise on Mars. I was being sarcastic - sorry you couldn't figure it out. I'll try to remember to use tags next time. Make up your mind. When I replied as though you were being sarcastic, you replied in a manner that implied that you were actually being serious. Or are you just trying to draw attention to the fact that there just might be a reasonable explanation for warmer temperatures on Mars that is not inconsistent with anthropogenic global warming on earth? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic. I didn't realize that you actually believed that humans are causing temperatures to rise on Mars. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!