Don't anyone tell this guy that two people can have a conversation in private and that after that that conversation's contents are permanently encrypted in their brain forever inaccessible. He'll either want to mandate everyone carry a mic 24/7 or start a project to be able to scan a person's memories.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Framework for an Iran deal reached, 47 senators heads explode
Quote:
After marathon negotiations, the United States, Iran and five other world powers announced an agreement Thursday outlining limits on Iran's nuclear program to block it from developing atomic weapons and directing negotiators toward a final accord this summer.
The United States and Iran each hailed the framework, reached by weary but upbeat diplomats after a week of intense diplomacy in Switzerland that capped 18 months of negotiations. Speaking from the White House, President Barack Obama called it a "good deal" that would address concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Crucially for the Iranians, it also would provide them broad relief over time from international sanctions that have crippled their economy.
Still, critics in both nations as well as wary U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia were likely to oppose the "plan of action" because of concessions allowing Iran to maintain significant elements of a program that could be used to produce either energy or nuclear arms.
"I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer," Obama declared. "It is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives."
In the Swiss city of Lausanne, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif read out a joint statement hailing what they called a "decisive step" after more than a decade of work. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the top diplomats of Britain, France and Germany took the stage behind them.
Kerry defended America's compromises. "Simply demanding that Iran capitulate makes a nice sound bite, but it is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan," he said. Still, he said that "many technical details" must be ironed out.
Sounds like they have fixed it though to not allow it to discriminate. I don't really understand what the purpose of the law is now though?
Why the Rah rah USA comments though because one state makes an offensive law. Isn't it more worth noting the amount of backlash that the law created across the country?
Should Canada get blamed for Taber's craziness?
The Following User Says Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
Sounds like they have fixed it though to not allow it to discriminate. I don't really understand what the purpose of the law is now though?
Why the Rah rah USA comments though because one state makes an offensive law. Isn't it more worth noting the amount of backlash that the law created across the country?
Should Canada get blamed for Taber's craziness?
This is more like when the wild rose voted unanimously against supporting gay-straight alliances, or when Klein threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to prevent gays from marrying.
It was pretty embarrassing for the rest of Canada at the time like it is for a lot of Americans right now.
In a jaw-dropping amicus brief recently filed with the Supreme Court, the state’s attorney general argues for a truly originalist understanding of the 14th Amendment, insisting that the Constitution permits discrimination not just against gays, but also against women. This argument is as morally abhorrent as it is historically accurate. And South Carolina deserves some credit for having the chutzpah to raise it.
...
The state wants to prove that the 14th Amendment—which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to every “person”—was not intended to displace state marriage laws.
...
According to South Carolina, the framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly preserved the rights of states to deprive married women of the ability to function independently from her husband.
...
If the 14th Amendment permits discrimination against married women, it surely also allows discrimination against gay people who wish to wed.
A reminder of Obama's slaying of the '12 minority vote, at only 28% of the total vote.
Women were 53% of the vote in '12. I'm just here thinking all Hilary has to do is not screw up.
For some reason this makes me uneasy, not that voting for Hilary is wrong. I'd probably vote for her as well but for women to vote for her just because she's a woman is wrong.
For some reason this makes me uneasy, not that voting for Hilary is wrong. I'd probably vote for her as well but for women to vote for her just because she's a woman is wrong.
Not anymore wrong than the millions of voters who won't vote for her just because she's a woman, or all the white people who could never vote for a black man for president, or all the republicans/democrats who could never vote for someone of the opposite party regardless of platform
The vast majority of voters choose their candidate on a single issue, that's the way it's always been and likely always will be
My single issue in this election cycle will be the likely appointment of up to four Supreme Court Justices. That will have the ability to influence the United States for decades.
Hillary's logo is horrible and it set the internet on fire that she's trying to appeal to 9/11 truthers (or subliminally admitting to being involved). I mean intentional or not, it does kinda look like a plane going into the towers...
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Bill also indicates, “I will be her VP, and if anything happens to her, God forbid, I will happily be president of the United States again. It’ll be Bill Clinton 2, bigger and blacker.” [SNL]
It looks like a stylized H with an arrow moving forward. Nothing more.
Could have an interesting psychological experiment with her logo.
Personally, I think that the arrow is moving backwards....
If the arrow was pointed in the other direction (westwardly), then I could see the "forward" argument.
That said, and lucky for Hillary, she can just flip her logo upside down and solve the "backwards" or "forwards" argument.
And considering how much she has flipped, and will continue to flip, her stance on essentially every position, I can see how starting off with an ambiguous logo makes sense for her.
Could have an interesting psychological experiment with her logo.
Personally, I think that the arrow is moving backwards....
If the arrow was pointed in the other direction (westwardly), then I could see the "forward" argument.
That said, and lucky for Hillary, she can just flip her logo upside down and solve the "backwards" or "forwards" argument.
And considering how much she has flipped, and will continue to flip, her stance on essentially every position, I can see how starting off with an ambiguous logo makes sense for her.
So the Fed Ex logo has an arrow moving backwards to you?
