This discussion is as pointless as a bald hedgehog. LOL

Perfect response!

I agree, it's called "Pareidolia", it's where our brains are hardwired to recognize familiar shapes, faces, etc. where none really exist.

Here's my plate, I'm sure he railroad buffs out there will get it.

With government funding of science it usually boils down to giving the government what it wants to hear, so the money keeps coming. Facts be damned, telling them what they don't want to hear is a sure way to lose funding of your work.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
but a single experiment can prove me wrong.
-Albert Einstein

Now that funny! :thumbup:

Wattage is important for other reasons too, having a power supply with a higher wattage rating than required is no issue, some people think if the item needs a 1/2 watt power supply, that a 1 watt will harm their equipment, but that's not true. The rating is simply what the charger is able to deliver, it doesn't push through more than needed. The opposite is a problem though, if your device needs 1 watt and you only use a 1/2 watt supply then you are over taxing the charger and it can create a fire hazard because the charger could overheat if not thermally protected.

There is nothing on my phone worth that price.

Check your gmail setup options on the iPod, there's probably a check box for "Remove mail from server when I delete it" or something similar. I just bought a new laptop and remember an option like that when I was setting up my email.

Things are looking like my wish could come true. There is rumor that Ziva may return to lure him away or the reappearance of former flame Jeanne Benoit may be a hint of things to come.

I agree, they should at least give him a decent send off, to a happy ending.

Are you really this stupid or are you just playing with us? No I won't skip this, because I want to show what a fool you are with this statement. What Section 10 says is that ONLY the federal government has the power to coin money.

Section 10 in full:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

What this is section is doing, is outlining what powers are granted to the federal government and prohibited to the states.



Blah, blah, blah. It doesn't say the government "can make money", it clearly reserves that power to the federal government, and it's section 10 that quite clearly states "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" so please tell me how any of this allows the Federal Reserve bank notes to be legal tender?



You're not paying attention Jimmy, I never said that the "from all enemies" part was from Article 1 section 8 or 10, I quite clearly said it was from Article 4, Section 4, and did you note the parenthesis, those were my words.

As for "Invasion" here's a more complete definition for you:

noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun:
the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion.

Therefore, while it can be a military intrusion, it certainly isn't limited to that narrow definition. So quite clearly saying that 12,000,000 illegal aliens is an invasion is hardly an inappropriate description. You really should work on your logic skills. So who's looking silly now?

Damn you're dense. There are far more references to these examples of case rulings than just the link you shared. And no matter how much you may think the link was a "crackpot article" how do you answer the quotes from said case law? While I still don't understand why you so vehemently defend an encroachment on your liberties, only a fool would deny that which any high school kid could Google the case and read the cases for yourself.

You may disagree with the subject of the thread, but your disagreement doesn't make you right, when countless case histories prove you wrong.

Ya know James, Ignorance is not a virtue. Yes the SCOTUS can and has on many occasions been wrong. Here are 6 great examples:
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
2. Pace v. Alabama (1883)
3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
4. Korematsu v. United States (1944)
5. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)
6. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Try Googling any or all of them and educate yourself.




Logic isn't your strong suit either I see. You are assessed a certain tax rate determined by your gross income. You are then allowed certain deductions for various expenses, be they voluntary or involuntary on your part. They have no bearing on how much tax you are originally assessed, only how much you actually have to pay after said "deductions". There's a huge difference.