rogerkillerpeck
RogerKillerPeck
rogerkillerpeck

In the context of religious belief, the “No True . . .” argument would most certainly appear to be correct since a religion is, by definition, a specific set of beliefs and behaviors. If someone does not follow those beliefs and behaviors, then they are, in fact, not a follower of that religion even if they claim to

It’s “tone policing” to point out that a proposed law is unlikely to actually to have any impact on the problem it’s allegedly supposed to solve?

+1 That’s why journalists avoid it. A typical news story will mention multiple different individuals in it (for example, a story about a murder will probably mention the (a) victim, (b) suspect(s), (c) witness(es), (d) police detective(s)/spokespeople, and (e) people who knew the victim), so using “they” as a

It’s almost always totally irrelevant to the subject at hand but many journalists insist on including it.

“Molderati” made me literally LOL!

It works by you having the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life by the government. You don’t have the right to have the government keep you alive except to the extent that the government has passed laws creating such an obligation on its part.

Is he trying to argue that doctors would become slaves of the state, without actually using the word slaves? Using the logic of his own argument, the police and fire service would be slaves to the state.

We would satisfy the right to healthcare like we do the military for defense, collect money, pay for people and equipment to provide said healthcare.

why did surge pricing apply

“The 3 of us...” she captioned it. What is this ellipsis?? More like “The 6 of us...”? More like the 3 of us...hanging out with our wombs? More like the 3 of us...growing babies?

Surely you mean a weak gag reflex?

This was likely a job requirement.

If you’re a network producer, why wouldn’t you want the President of the United States to come on your show? That would generate massive free publicity for the show and a big ratings bump even if it’s just for people to hatewatch.

That’s a law that can be amended like any other law, not some immutable force of nature.

1. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for second homes?

The evidence would be the fact that, as a matter of excruciatingly basic economics, to convert assets into cash for redistribution (because the vast, vast majority of that $8.4 trillion Nolan is talking about isn’t held as cash) you need a buyer for the assets, but if you try to put a hypothetical $8.4 trillion in

The Fifth Amendment protects against takings of private property without compensation. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.