Free Republic

Well, fundamentally I agree.

But it's worth noting that the ultimate Lockean justifications on which our government's existence was predicated include the preservation of life and property.

If the government should fail to provide these basic protections then one must start to wonder why it is worth recognizing as a government, or paying taxes to.

No, but my teenage daughter does.

Pretty much sums it up.

Wonder how the drug dealers are going to take this once Merck or Pfizer can sell a safer form of these drugs.

I'd advise keeping your guns cocked and loaded, because I imagine participants in the underground economy are going to be looking for alternate revenue streams.

What, exactly, has changed since Election Day?

Well, before election day, the shots were being called by a first term United States senator who had no idea what he was doing.

Now the shots are being called by his staff of advisers, who are experienced, qualified, and have no desire to be dragged down by political failure.

Christians in general exhibit a disturbing dissonance between biblical principle and personal behavior. 4/5 of Americans consider themselves to be Christian, but I can’t really see the situation as 4/5 of America being the immaculate ideal of the City on a Hill, and then it’s just the other 1/5 that’s dragging us down. The sex industry (including Hollywood) could not endure as it has with 80% of people being holding to Christian ideals. Obviously 8% of our GDP does not voluntarily go to helping the poor and supporting the church. My own experience is that the person we would indisputably consider a “real” Christian is a quite rare sight, even among those who subscribe to pretexts of church and charity. (there are plenty of selfish, non-spiritual reasons even just to be nice or to go to church...)

Undoubtedly, Obama has played up his faith as a political expedient, and I believe I remember reading that he had stopped going to church and was instead ‘working out’ now that he has been elected, which I think clearly indicates either that he was not constantly praying about and did not attribute his election victory to God, or else is just very ungrateful. Typically, religious people exhibit spikes of devotion after being delivered into something great for which they had been petitioning.

But as for the actual absolute determination of whether Obama is a Christian, that is utterly between him and God. We could guess but never know, and who are we ‘to judge another’s servant’?

I think it is appropriate to (constructively) point out where Obama deviates from Christian principle, and where his faith could use more strength, but not simply to assert that he is not a’real Christian’, as long as his own words indicate that he believes Christ to be the messiah.

And, in so much as we do (constructively) point out these failings, I hope we are ourselves setting an appropriate standard, which includes being generous, kind, and loving at every opportunity. Because, really, the worst thing Christianity has going for it right now is when people set these standards for a ‘real Christian’ implying rights to the label, then go out lie, gossip, say malicious things, sleep around, are stingy with charity or even tips, etc., and water down the value of the label.

-Take tuition-free classes at Central Piedmont Community College, graduating after four years with 18 to 21 college credits. -Do internships during school hours to prepare for a career. -Study abroad.

Yes, yes, yes.

-Graduate a year early.

Why? You can drop out at 16 and get a GED. As long as you have good grades that's not really an obstacle to getting into college or getting scholarships.

More likely, though, it will just result in people slacking off.

What they need to do is be better about granting school credit for internships/study abroad/college classes. Assuming they do want to encourage those things, and that is not merely a list of excuses.

at the massive plant, which makes Nerf toys

Should have unleashed some hell:

Even if you adopt the liberal position on abortion... how can you think this would not be massively insulting to the recipients?

It would not be in her power to lower the salary to get around this prohibition.

No but it would be within the power of the same Senate which will have to approve her appointment to the cabinet.

I can't imagine why they would be willing to confirm her but not to revert the emoluments of the position.

What? Why am I “grasping at straws”? Why is it up to me to “let her take the job”?

I’m just explaining what the text says. She has to take a paycut in order to be appointed. Them’s the rules. It’s pretty clearcut.

Unless you just think the constitution is just too much bother to follow anymore.

Hillary Clinton was elected in 2006 to a six year term. Therefore, “during the time for which he was elected” is from 2006-2012. The actual time served is irrelevant. In fact, the next phrase “and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office” already bars one from retaining their legislative position, so what would be point of saying the same thing twice?

Hillary can still take the position provided they reduce her pay back to the previous level.

(Unless, of course, Obama was counting on this, and just drops her altogether while feigning surprise.)

He should pardon Obama for doing cocaine.

I have not ever contested the accuracy of the headline. I think I rather implied that it is accurate.

What I am observing, as I have said, is that it does not present the underlying point. An article headline of “Richter meters graph large spikes” would not be a good headline for an article about a massive earthquake in California, however accurate it might otherwise be.

The author who wrote the article would agree with me. He sums the whole thing up as “In other words, QCD is QED,” a statement which is neither equivalent to, nor implied by, the actual headline.

That was actually not what I meant at all. What I am saying is that the headline overlooks the significance of the experiment.

As it happens, there have been literally thousands of other measurements of proton/neutron masses and each of those has been a confirmation of the standard model. That by itself is utterly trivial.

If you consult the article, the entire point is that they have confirmed an aspect of quantumchromodynamics. So you'd think that's what the headline would be about.

“Standard model gets right answer for proton, neutron masses”

What a terrible headline. That’s like writing about the satellite confirmation of time drag as “General relativity gets right answer for clock speed.”

Yes, the masses were what were measured, but that’s not exactly the feature of the experiment....

Can’t pardon until indicted and convicted. Therefore, can’t pardon himself.

That's not a rule, I'm afraid. Plenty of people have been pardoned without any kind of legal proceedings against them. Thousands and thousands in the case of amnesties....

Did they check to see if he had prison blueprints tattooed on his back?

Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’ve learned not to believe media reports on stuff like this. I’ve never seen them 100% accurate yet.

I’ve no doubt there were some jerks, but I’m sure there were people trying to help also.

According to the article, he popped a few pills then turned his back on the camera and went to bed. The people who were being aggressive were doing so on the impression it was staged, and others did apparently contact the police. Given that he could have swallowed anything, and the idea of someone committing suicide by webcam is somewhat surreal, and that if you call shenanigans on the internet 99/100 times you're right. . . it's not surprising, really. I don't know how malicious the comments were, but I'd expect some rather caustic but basically non-malevolent commentary from people who thought they were being played, just as a very human reaction.

That being said, I think mean-spirited comments are a rather evil thing in any context, whether about a troubled stranger or mortal enemy or anyone else. But I don't think this particular occurrence plunges the depths of human callousness. It's more of an example of detachment.

I don't think anyone in any of the third parties is under the impression that their candidates are in a position of political viability. Nor do I think that pointing this out to them is likely to dissuade them from the ulterior purposes they have in mind when they join and support such parties.