What lesson do they mean, exactly? "Drugs and bees don't mix"?

It always bewildered me how the common response on the right was "all lives matter". Exactly how paranoid and racist do you have to be to assume that what they mean is "only black lives matter".

"There is no greater race, than the great American race."
Do they mean the Baja 1000?

I thought it was explained clearly in the show....they mean nothing, because with access to infinite timelines, he has infinite replacement families, and except for Morty has replaced them all at least once, but he explained that the energy it would take to find a satisfactory replacement Morty was more than he energy it takes to save the original, making replacing him a dumb move...and Rick isn't dumb.

There are far more 'common threads' between Daesh and the Bakers than there are with Daesh and the left.

Did that guy just say the Soviet Union funded nuclear protests world wide in the 80's? When they were dead broke, starving, and the union was dissolving? I'm pretty certain that would be news to my aunt and uncle who have run an anti-nuclear protest group since the early 70's.

John Guanadolo?!? Really? "Foremost terrorism expert"?!? Don't they mean "disgraced and fired ex FBI agent caught having numerous affairs, including with witnesses he was protecting, among numerous other complaints, most notably his rabid anti Muslim stances and actions but including coercion and extortion"?

Not really a surprise from people who believe in talking snakes, tout incestuous communities (Adam, Eve, and their progeny), and who worship a zombie, but still disappointing.

When they talk about $1.7 trillion of economic loss per year, I think they mean 10% of U.S. GDP, not 1%.

Build a wall? I think they mean, continue the wall that already exists over about a third of the border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier

When someone says something like "we're exploiting parallel universes", what they mean is that one of the many theories that can be used to describe quantum behaviour such as entanglement is to do with parallel universes.

That doesn't mean there aren't other theories, it doesn't mean there are parallel universes, it's just one of the few ways we can make it make sense is if it exists and carries information in a dimension that is not tangible to us.

When Archimedes invented his screw, using gravity to drive water uphill, he could have said that he's using an invisible multi-dimensional goblin to move the water; well that's one theory and its irrefutable until Newton makes an appearance. And even then you can still say "yeah but what we know of gravity is still a multidimensional goblin."

Having said that, it has as much likelihood of being correct as any other theory in its infancy.

What they mean is, they want to say all the racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynist bullshit they can spew out. And still have everyone like, respect and not marginalize them afterwards.

I wonder what they mean by "Clearly there are additional facts in this matter, and we won't comment until we address the litigation."
At least that's confirmation of her claims, if not their veracity. If true, I hope she forces some serious retraining.

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

Why do you say that's not true? I'm guessing they mean one of two things, both of which are plausible:

1: the hardware wasn't fast enough, i.e. it wasn't possible to render Hank in a reasonable timeframe. Remember, GPUs in particular are several orders of magnitude faster now than they were in 2003.

2: the software wasn't written. Almost certainly true, but not exactly accurate to say that it "wasn't possible with the technology".

"Evil" is a moral judgement that is a personal opinion. To say she's not "evil" is meaningless, because it all depends on what you think is evil, and there's clearly no consensus about that.

What she's clearly not for most people is trustworthy. Time and time again she's demonstrated that to the satisfaction of well over 1/2 the American people (at least according to all polls done on the subject). No matter what your personal opinion is about her or how wrong you might think those detractors are, that they say they think that is a fact, and that makes the election a coin toss...and unfortunately the Republicans supply the coin (because they make the voting machines).

In my mind, if I can't trust a person, it doesn't matter a whit what they say they'll do, because I can't believe they mean it or will follow through. I feel that way about both Clinton and Trump, but to differing degrees. I think they both have put their own interests above those of the country, and will do so again.