Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This remains to be seen. There were some arguments I think about the geopolitical consequences of Iraq, and maybe the domestic consequences of the crash, but largely, to me, it seems that Trump is rapidly accelerating those consequences. Trump did not create these breaches but he is an extremely destabilizing force within them.
Yeah, I don't support Donald Trump in any real definitional sense and I don't think many people I came of age with or worked for do. I think there's an element of domestic realpolitik at work, and there's simply no other way to describe it.
Don't forget the institutionalizing of K Street, but that's not the point. THAT's an argument, Trump can't be. The difference between this administration (and the legislature's enabling, btw) and the last 5 minutes of Supermarket Sweepstakes are indistinguishable.
This is Taibbi after the Helsinki press conference, right around 13:00 is the money part. On the whole it is a totally different tone though.rockaction said:
I'll have to check out the interview when Game Seven between WSH/CAR is over. Sounds interesting.
I just hate the whole idea. Words like “fair” and “just” should have no role in government proposals. They presume that we already live in a fair or just society. We don’t and never have.
That's not how people view proposals. At all. It's not even, as you insist, the correct way to view a bill or policy proposal. Equitable concerns are always a concern when it comes to public policy and the compulsory turning over of one's wages. If it's not a fair nor representative bill, then it won't be passed in general, nor should it be.
The link is an article about autonomous cars and the threat of mandatory usage. The centerpiece of the article is a person who has started a group lobbying for laws and a constitutional right to drive, which doesn't exist. Your point is snarky, you didn't click the link, and you're disproving an argument that was never made by me -- or by anyone remotely related to the link you didn't even click in a show of your splendorous Dutch knowledge. Congratulations.
I did ckick the link. The argument for this supposed/proposed right is laughable and deserves derision
When they do the double dutch...
I’m not familiar with the author of that article, but quoting Nina Teicholz for support isn’t a great way to come across as a serious dietary journalist.
Baylen Linnekin is more of a legal expert on food rather than a dietary guy/nutriotionist and says it in the article, as quoted below. Ron Bailey is more of a science guy. I probably should have linked to him and the article he wrote for Reason earlier in the week on whole-fat dairy and the new study on its health ramifications.
If the human race can't advance their own processes, all tech advances will be more burden than boon.
If there are chemicals in my daughters’ makeup stuff that could cause them to get cancer, I’d like to see it restricted.
I just thought of the practical implications of the restriction of the discount supply.
Then let it go up. And as to your second point, I don’t know. You tell me something might make me sick, I’m not rushing to buy it because of a lower price point. No thanks.
My second point wasn't women rushing to get the old supply, it was a general comment about a reduction in supply in concert with a consistent demand. Prices are going to go up, people are going to have to adjust their purchasing habits. You think the women of WH and Fairfield aren't hitting the counters now?
Companies will meet the demand by coming up with new inexpensive items that satisfy the safety requirement.
I wasn't asking about you feeling safe. I was talking about an officious ban on cosmetics, one the article says is unlikely to pass. As far as the red herring of feeling safe, go to downtown LA and say the same to me. I was just there a year ago among the homeless at night.
