Posted on 06/28/2012 4:41:50 AM PDT by secret garden
In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of "Word for the Day".
subitize \SOO-bi-tahyz\, verb
To perceive at a glance the number of items presented.
Example sentences:
Below seven the subjects were said to subitize; above seven they were said to estimate.
-- H. Gutfreund and G. Toulouse, Biology and Computation: A Physicist's Choice
I wanted to see if Pedro could subitize, so I asked, “Pedro, how many stars are in the first circle?”
-- Melissa Conklin, It Makes Sense!
Etymology:
Subitize comes from the Latin word subitāre which meant "to appear suddenly".
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day. The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....
Review Thread One: Word For The Day, Thursday 11/14/02: Raffish (Be SURE to check out posts #92 and #111 on this thread!)
Review Thread Two: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/14/03: Roister
Review Thread Three: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/28/03: Obdurate
WFB's attempt to emulate us ; ) No pushing at the door please!
Neighbor also took the position that there is NO problem forcing Catholic entities to pay for abortion or birth control. I will have to avoid her for weeks now, as I am so angry about this decision. SHE WORKS FOR A CATHOLIC CHURCH and she says this. Unbelievable. Catholic vote is still O’s.
Um. Language alert in previous post, turn down the volume at work.
I am not even peeking out of the classroom door. Cannot take any more negative today.
That's beautiful.
And helping me out of my deep funk.
After we win can we impeach Chief Justice Judas Iscariot?
i have my one black lib dem friend who is an obamabot and catholic, we will not talk politics bc it would end our friendship.
It’s unfortunate, but I have lost friends who are democrats because we didn’t have very much in common when you got right down to it. It even leeched into parenting and family discussions, not to mention religion. I don’t really miss them either, because I associate more with those with which I do have more in common. But it’s kind of sad. As I age, I am less willing to tolerate BS on any level.
In other news, Bipartisanship! House finds Holder in contempt of Congress, 254-173.
Nice!
Of course Holder is now saying Fast & Furious was a tax ;)
oh, we will remain friends. I do not want to walk with her till I cool down. just saw her and her family while getting milk at the bottom of my hill.....three of them in the car all smiling ear to ear and waving. I am not smiling much today. shocked. can’t figure out wthh.
we started working together 27 years ago, had our kids at the same time and been at all the kids birthdays etc. Know each other’s families well etc. i can find redeeming qualities in people who have traits that annoy the shit out of me, my kids marvel at it, but i can. Cheryl would do anything for me, and vice versa. obamaloving dem that she is.
Neighbor also said that she could care less that 130,000 seniors were killed under socialized medicine in England. Said maybe that is what they should do, just die. Waste of money to keep them alive. Literally, stunned me. Kept saying “so”?. and to think she goes to the nursing home with the priest while he offers mass. what a phony Christian. happy slappy Catholicism at it’s Rochester best.
From 2005:
we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever
Right now, today, I wonder if I want to go back to my church, or start looking elsewhere. I get little sustenance from my church. Rochester is wearing me down. Watering down my faith.
I’m with you. This is the best possible decision for Romney (and a GOP Congress) in terms of momentum.
I cannot take anymore today. Bad enough to live in the USA today, let alone NY state. I have kept my ranting here in the classroom on FR. Man, I want to take that imaginary bottle of champagne and slam it over O’s head. Especially, when he came on my TV. Had to turn that off.
Using this reasoning, I see no reason why we couldn't tax the living crap out of anyone who doesn't own a gun:
The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government.
As long as we follow the same pattern, it's all hunky dory. You can make any activity mandatory as long as you apply a tax to it.
Whether accidentally or on purpose, I think the supremes just handed the Tea Party a whole fleet of tea transports, and Romney a defining issue...
Be careful what you wish for-
We all should know that is true
Obama had better listen now for
The falling of the other shoe
Nearly everyone can subitize-
Our taxes are increasing faster
Handing us yet another one is
A recipe for political disaster
Now, the healthcare tax can be
The issue to smack down Obama-
He said no new taxes, and this lie
May sink his bogus showarama
I heard him earlier, back to hawking the thing like a carnival barker (again)-you can’t be denied (and your tax refund will be forfeit)! Your adult kids can be covered (and continue to suck off of you long after they should be on their own)! Everyone is covered (and IRS will make sure that you pay)! Etc, etc...
Did not the Zero government defend their atrocious health control law on the basis of the Commerce Clause? Did not the Zero himself repeatedly deny that it would be a massive tax increase?
Why then did the SCOTUS grant them relief that they did not request? If they did not ask that the law be funded with a "tax", what contortions did Roberts et al have to engage in to give the government an escape hatch?
In legal proceedings I have witnessed, judges will not give you what you do not ask for.
I smell a dead rat.
The gov’t argued primarily that the commerce clause covers the mandate.
They argued as a backup that it was “necessary and proper.”
They argued as a backup backup that it was a tax.
Roberts bit on the backup backup.
There is supposedly a principle that if one can construe a law in multiple ways, and one of them is constitutional, then it should be found constitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.