Valsuelm

That is great news. Every business have the right to refuse service to anyone. Why would medical profesions be excluded? Unfortunately, not really true. Up until the abominable Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the even more abonimable SCOTUS cases which held that it could be applied to private businesses, the bolded was largely the case in our formerly relatively free nation. Since then, the bolded is increasingly less true. Does that mean you're okay with people denying service to people based by the color of their skin? Because that's what it sounds like you're okay with. If not, then how come you think the civil rights act is abomnable? edit: Making my question sound a bit less hostile, which wasn't intended to be hostile. On a legal level, yes.The freedom to associate with or not associate with whomever you wish or don't wish is one of the most fundamental freedoms that exists. Government infringing on that freedom in any way, is an abomination. Any government that would do so, is not governing over a free people. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be a largely commendable thing, if it only pertained to the Federal Government. The aspects of it that were levied on the populace at large is anything but commendable. It's a giant pile of stinking **** like every other Federal overreach that the commerce clause has been twisted to justify. I personally think that anyone who denied service to someone based on the color of their skin is an idiot. However I fully support said idiot's right to be such an idiot. Telling someone at the point of a gun who they can, can't, must, or mustn't associate with in their personal life or business is evil.

WTB the unedited interview.

Bwahahaha, what a wide ridiculous net you throw. People "who don't want to kill babies" or are incapable of executing the duties of their positions need to be run out of that position. Go do something else that your "moral or religious compass" will allow. Easy peasy. Yes, I support abortion. But like all things there are limits, such as the current developmental stage of the fetus. I do not support "late term abortion" unless the life of the mother is at risk. Also, imo, most bible thumpers are a-holes. If that much of a persons mentality is determined by religion then your nothing more than a weak minded automaton. Again, imo. No net was thrown. I asked for clarification, you provided it. Thank you for that. However... What an incredibly shallow, arbitrary, capricious, and myopic viewpoint. I pity you.

That article you link is an excellent example of dishonest journalism or an absolutely retarded journalist. The very article it links to disputes many of the Politico article's claims and headline. Carrier didn't lay off anyone despite Trump, or renege on it's deal. The layoffs mentioned in your article were part of the deal and expected. Initially United Technologies (who owns Carrier, and has been shipping jobs to other nations for quite awhile now) was going to lay off 100% of the workers at the Indiana plant, however a deal was struck in which only some of the workers would be laid off. Trump and Pence are credited with brokering this deal. Note that UTC, like many many other corporations, have been shipping jobs from high tax states (like New York, which once had Carrier's headquarters) to lower tax states, and to other nations for a very long time now. The rust belt is a thing, and it's primary cause was and is high taxes. High taxes where though? You just said low tax states are the ones attracting companies and the rust belt/appalachia states aren't generally thought of as being high tax. Sure, you could be talking about the corporate tax thing, but even under that, companies were going to low tax states from high tax states. That bolded part seems contradictory because the rust belt isn't a high tax zone, that I'm aware of. Um... are you unaware of where the high tax states are? It's not hard to find out where they are, at least in regards to taxes on people, which is indicative of, yet not the same as taxes on businesses, which are taxed higher than individuals in pretty much every State. Where higher taxes are one also generally finds more regulation. Hint: New York is the highest taxed state and arguably the rustiest spot on the belt. A fact that is often overlooked due many if not most thinking of New York State as New York City and nothing else (Like a large percentage of the populace doesn't realize there's a California north of San Francisco). The only other state that's about as rusty is Michigan, which is also one of the highest taxed and regulated states in the U.S.. Michigan, Detroit in particular, has some particularly insane and oppressive labor laws which makes doing business there quite a bit less profitable than near everywhere else. Companies didn't flee the rust belt just because. Detroit didn't go to poop just because. Greedy and corrupt politicians passed laws that drove many out and killed many of those that didn't escape.

That is great news. Every business have the right to refuse service to anyone. Why would medical profesions be excluded? Unfortunately, not really true. Up until the abominable Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the even more abonimable SCOTUS cases which held that it could be applied to private businesses, the bolded was largely the case in our formerly relatively free nation. Since then, the bolded is increasingly less true.

It would be great if it never opened back up. Alas, the threats are just smoke and mirror bull****.

So you think that people who don't want to kill babies are a-holes? Or is it just religious people who are a-holes?

Most of them lost their minds long before this. I find it interesting how doctor actually said that Trump isn't really in good shape (when taking in consideration his weight and medicines that he is taking) but is healthy enough to most likely to survive next 7 years and how that is twisted to story about how Trump is healthy and fit, because his shape was not as bad as some people predicted/hoped. Also I find it interesting how people say that Trump doesn't exercise even though he spent more time on golf course than in office. Even though golf is not most physically straining sport it demands lots of walking even when one uses mostly golf car to move that it would be strange if Trump does not actually do more physical exercise than your typical 70 year old. Although Trump seems to be much worse shape than my Grandmother who is over ten year older than him, but she was athlete in her younger days (like for example when she was 70 ) The doctor said the bolded? I'm not doubting you, however do you have a link? Also, health is a relative thing. Trump is far from the pinnacle of health, however he is definitely healthier than the average 71 year old, and probably a lot healthier than the average person 10 years his junior. Which really isn't hard as most people are really unhealthy these days.

That article you link is an excellent example of dishonest journalism or an absolutely retarded journalist. The very article it links to disputes many of the Politico article's claims and headline. Carrier didn't lay off anyone despite Trump, or renege on it's deal. The layoffs mentioned in your article were part of the deal and expected. Initially United Technologies (who owns Carrier, and has been shipping jobs to other nations for quite awhile now) was going to lay off 100% of the workers at the Indiana plant, however a deal was struck in which only some of the workers would be laid off. Trump and Pence are credited with brokering this deal. Note that UTC, like many many other corporations, have been shipping jobs from high tax states (like New York, which once had Carrier's headquarters) to lower tax states, and to other nations for a very long time now. The rust belt is a thing, and it's primary cause was and is high taxes.

Fair enough. It certainly is safe to say that it generally takes less tampering to throw an election with fewer total votes than one with more. That said, if one wants to throw a larger election (county, state or national), one can focus on a few, or even one, key place(s). Florida 2000 is a somewhat infamous example in national elections, and as previously mentioned wasn't the only place there was evidence of tampering that election. Even the mainstream press acknowledges that many national elections come down to a few key places, i.e. 'Swing States'. And if we consider primaries, similar is often the situation. There's generally not too much of a point in padding team blue numbers in New York or California in a Presidential election in the modern era, if winning is your only goal. That said, there are still reasons to pad numbers in such places. What would you consider a comprehensive and objective study? Theres a whole ton of studies out there. One that is comprehensive and objective. I don't think one exists, I'd like to be wrong about that.

35 years ago this was #1 on the charts, and men the world over thought 'Yes Olivia, let's!'

I'm curious how you think that local elections are more susceptible to fraud than national elections when the vast majority of all government elections (local through national) occur in the same polling place and are tallied by the same people/system. And you really think that in any national election where millions vote that only '~100 or so, or less' votes are fraudulent? Really? I'd be curious to see a link to a comprehensive and objective study on this subject that actually says this.

I wouldn't want to be the doctor who told him he wasn't.

Most of them lost their minds long before this.

I'm just curious. Why not plug your laptop into a wall?

It is foolish to think that election fraud is a partisan issue. I'm going to give you some benefit of doubt and assume you're young for a moment, and don't vividly recall the cries of election fraud following the 2000 Presidential election by oodles of people, primarily democrats. Indeed, if you look into it, there is ample evidence that election fraud occurred in that election on numerous levels and in numerous places, ultimately in favor of the Republicans that time around. People within both parties play the evil game, and often turn a blind eye to it, as they're both greatly invested in the broken system. There's a number of good documentaries on the subject, particularly many made in the wake of the 2000 election . One I especially suggest finding is 'Hacking Democracy', watching it, and thinking. Also, next time you go to the ballot box, take a good look around and ponder how easy it is for the results of your polling station to be tampered with. If you come up with anything but easy as an answer you either vote in a polling station with fail-safes I've never seen or heard of, or you lack imagination. Again, it is foolish to think that voter fraud is a partisan issue. I'm 34, don't know if that's young to you. But to answer your question, yes, there was the debacle with 'hanging chads' and problems with the butterfly ballot in Florida. Democrats definetly weren't happy and they were protesting about irregularities and problems in Florida and wanted to continue the count but it got stopped. Don't remember about problems outside of Florida in 2000 though, the problems in Florida were the dominant complaint. As for both parties playing the game, yeah, the Republicans do it all the time like fewer polling places, etc. I know it's not a partisan issue, but I was making a distinction between dirty tricks/voter suppression election fraud which aren't illegal vs actual breaking of the law election fraud. The partisan bit is the Republicans crying election fraud numbering in the millions or tens of thousands without showing proof for stuff on that scale. The issues with the 2000 election went beyond Florida and hanging chads. It's been well over a decade since I was fresh on that election but Ohio was definitely another sticky point, as well as various peoples and business entities in Florida and elsewhere. The mainstream media just touched on the surface poo that was smeared all over that election. Like many other things in politics, the deeper you look the uglier it gets. Anon. I'm curious how you differentiate the underlined and bolded above. What is the difference? What election fraud isn't illegal?

It is foolish to think that election fraud is a partisan issue. I'm going to give you some benefit of doubt and assume you're young for a moment, and don't vividly recall the cries of election fraud following the 2000 Presidential election by oodles of people, primarily democrats. Indeed, if you look into it, there is ample evidence that election fraud occurred in that election on numerous levels and in numerous places, ultimately in favor of the Republicans that time around. People within both parties play the evil game, and often turn a blind eye to it, as they're both greatly invested in the broken system. There's a number of good documentaries on the subject, particularly many made in the wake of the 2000 election . One I especially suggest finding is 'Hacking Democracy', watching it, and thinking. Also, next time you go to the ballot box, take a good look around and ponder how easy it is for the results of your polling station to be tampered with. If you come up with anything but easy as an answer you either vote in a polling station with fail-safes I've never seen or heard of, or you lack imagination. Again, it is foolish to think that voter fraud is a partisan issue.

Proof that they're actually doing so in large numbers (in the range of thousands to tens of thousands or more)? Please distinguish fact from conspiracy theories. If you don't think there's rampant voter fraud in any given national election (and many state and local elections (and even some student and club elections)), involving illegal aliens, dead people, living people, and more I have a bridge catalogue I'd like you to take a look at. Election fraud is one of the biggest elephants in the room that a great many are invested in pretending isn't there. Nescience or supreme naiveté is required to believe that said stinky elephant is not there.

Why on earth can't you use the forum quotation tools offered here? Reading what you have to say would often be much easier if you did. Yes, the forum software that Obsidian uses leaves a lot to be desired but with all due respect, it beats your formatting.

In other news, here's some food for thought: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-werent-always-super-liberal-on-immigration/

Sarcasm? While I do tend to dish out sarcastic remarks from time to time, that is absolutely not the case here. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is a blatantly racist organization. Fomenting and fostering racism, division, and hatred is at the heart of what it does. If I called the NAACP a caring or loving organization, now that would be sarcasm!

Eh? The hateful NAACP have been masters of vehemently fighting imaginary ghouls for decades. It's only natural that they'd take up arms against 'global warming'. An organization without real legitimate purpose needs to keep making up enemies to fight. That pizza however, looks decent. Alas that McDonald's 'food' is never as good as it looks in pictures.