tkhayes

hate crimes at the state level, not affected one bit by the DOJ or the Whitehouse.... http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/04/3605959/south-florida-hate-crime-convict.html plenty more, just google it.

maybe at the federal level sure, but the piling on of charges happens all the way down to every level of prosecution.

it's a reflection of the current justice system. pile on the charges and get a better plea deal. Hate crimes carry some stiff penalties, so facing that, the perp will likely plead to whatever gets the less amount of jail-time risk. I doubt the feds want to see a hate crime case go to trial, but I bet they are willing to use it as leverage, as are many prosecutors at all levels will all sorts of charges these days. We could have trials and focus on the real crimes more if we got rid of the drug wars altogether, but since the system pays itself on arrests and convictions, I doubt that will ever happen anytime soon

create level flight (parallel to the ground) with the initial toggle input. The rest of the flare is holding level flight, ideally with your feet just skimming the ground. Continue to flare and hold level flight by continuing to add input until the parachute can no longer hold you up (or stall) and you transition from 'the parachute holding you up' to 'your feet holding you up'. And as John Leblanc has said many times - just when you are about to plop your feet down and start running, lift your feet up instead and push the toggles another 4 inches to the bottom. The canopy will go further and slow down even more. If your canopy is stalling during the flare, it may not be set up or trimmed properly. All bets are off if the parachute is out of whack, steering lines are simply too short, or if the canopy is so baffed out that the riggers decided just to shorten the steering lines because it will not flare any more.

apparently the world missed this picture. everyone looks grumpy EXCEPT her. nice cherry picking of 1/200th of a second increments in time.

the atheists got the same in Florida, in Starkey in front of the courthouse. It was wrong to have ANY religious reference there in the first place, and now it turns into a debacle. I hope the flying spaghetti folks get theirs as well. The quicker we turn it into the farce that it really is, the better for all of us. Keep the religious crap out of govt always. http://www.news4jax.com/news/atheists-unveil-monument-by-ten-commandments-in-front-of-courthouse/-/475880/20775114/-/2xce5tz/-/index.html

1. you are free to find a job where you employer pays 100% of your health insurance and then you do not have to buy it. 2. you are free to have no job, be poor and then qualify for Medicaid and not have to pay for it. Your extreme unrealistic, non-nonsensical example vs. My extreme unrealistic, non-nonsensical example

done

The French Resistance 'signed off on the deaths' of a lot of people too. But in the end they are still hailed as heroes fighting for their country and their cause. You defend the actions of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the fact that hundreds, if not tens of thousands of innocent people have died for the 'cause' that you defend. Oh that's right, you are American, so your cause is correct and at the behest of God, whereas the others are not.....

Winnie is not 'his lovely wife'. They separated almost as soon as he got out of jail and they divorced soon after that. Nelson Mandela had no idea what she was or may have been doing while he was in prison and he certainly had no effect on her actions given the isolation he was kept under. Winnie Mandela was a fraud and used the position for her own personal gains, got involved in a lot of bad shit. Hence why he decided that was not going to work.

chapter and verse of what I am violating please..... cannot read your mind Mark, if you have something to say, then i suggest you say it instead of beating around. Communication is two-ways. you have to get the message across effectively and I have to understand it effectively.

your opening sentence set up the premise for your post. Your opening statement was invalid, thus I ignored the rest of it. I did actually read it, I decided not to respond to it. Does not change the response I gave you, which is correct. Businesses do not have the right to run themselves as they see fit. They have to operate within the confines of the law. the law says that health insurance plans have to provide birth control as well as many other women's services opposed by many religions. that is it. They should be challenging the law, which they are, and they will lose that battle most likely.

I get the argument from the religious group because that is what they 'believe in', and their belief structures are far different than they were 2000, 1000, 500 and even 30 years ago. There is no 'standard of Christianity' to base laws on, and the last time we tried that we failed (congressional Congress I think 1774?). Somewhere after that time, around say, 1776, we decided that religion would have no part of the laws of the country, but you could practice on an individual basis. And many are trying to take us back to the time before that. i do not want to go there. Not ever. have your beliefs, but under no circumstances do you get to impose them on me. That means you have an individual right to practice your religion and I have an individual right not not have it affect my life. And I will bet $1200 that is the outcome of the Supreme Court on this matter. unless of course SCOTUS decides to jam out of the debate and make some arbitrary 'we're not gonna talk about it' ruling that leaves the country in limbo. And with the way the court has been lately, that is also entirely possible.

No they. do not have a right to run a business as they see fit. They cannot operate outside the boundaries of the law. They cannot run a business that sells slaves nor can they rub a business that dumps dangerous chemicals into a water supply. They DO NOT get to run their business as they see fit- you are mistaken

Yes you can and we already do it all the time. These same employers also (often) make their employees work on Sundays when their Christian faith dictates that you should be put to death for working on a Sunday. it is far to convenient to be able to cherry pick your religious beliefs, then impose them on others. I say your religious beliefs end where my Constitutional beliefs begin, certainly when it comes to you making decisions for me based on your religious beliefs. If your religious beliefs do not allow for birth control, then don't take birth control. That has nothing to do with me.

The Republican platform is available on their website and it is a whole lot of nothing. They do not want govt. That is their mandate. Fine, but most of the country wants to solve problems, not create them. having hundreds of thousands of poor and sick people in your country is one of the 'problems' that those 'commie socialistic progressives' would like to fix, as would many Republicans. The right wing solution is to do nothing. Individuals should be personally responsible. Fine as an ideology, does not work in real life. The progressive solution (in part) is to mandate some sort of protections to help people from being sick and poor. We mandate a lot of things to better the health and welfare of society as a whole, not necessarily the individual as 'one'.

Hobby Lobby, Notre Dame and many others that are now suing the govt because they are being forced to include birth control as part of the employee health plans are ALREADY providing birth control through their health plans. They were before and they are today, and that is a fact. It is the most ridiculous asinine hypocritical argument I have ever heard. Too bad the Supreme Court is not allowed to tell them to SHADDUP!

I am not 'offended'. I am rolling my eyes....

30,000 children starved to death in the world today. And we have a thread about tips at a restaurant.

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/wc/employer/require/insure_index.html oo-oo, another. I know I know - you added the condition 'just because they exist'. I know of no such condition, but of course, you would change the terms and definitions just to make your argument. And if you can do that, then I get to make the constitutional argument of the ACA by defining it as the 'general welfare of the United States', right? Article 1, Section 8, in case you missed it...

1. car insurance http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/frfaqgen.html I rest my case

Already asked and answered a thousand times. Government requires you to buy a lot of things. You already know that. And the slippery slope only goes so far. Your line in the sand just differs from other people's line in the sand.

Of course you don't get it. Obtuse is one of your feechurs.....

source that please. preferably not something from Fox news.... Oh you mean the 'American Enterprise Institute'? I am all ears.....for sure the bastion of public policy.... predictions are closer to 5M. 1.7% of the population. And no stats about what plans they will be replaced with, many of which will be better coverage. Man will be better coverage for less money. Yep....truly a disaster. [bat-shit-crazy]

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2011/rwjf71451 http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412665-Despite-Criticism-The-Affordable-Care-Act-Does-Much-to-Contain-Health-Care-Cost.pdf Just a couple things I found in a couple seconds. You must be right then, the ACA does NOTHING to control costs....except for the parts of it that do of course.