Sometimes. It depends on the judge, which is a problem in itself, being that the law is not partisan. Boasberg has been working insanely hard to uphold the Constitution in his court. We should recognize the ones that put their duty above money or loyalty, and replace the rest.
That would only apply had our court system not failed us in convicting him before the election.
That would take an amendment to the Constitution, which requires 2/3 of states to ratify. He has a better chance of taking it by force than by law.
We had 40+ tornadoes, massive hailstorms, flooding, and drought-enabled wildfires, in six adjacent states within 48 hours. Maybe it’s time we start listening to climatologists rather than billionaire propaganda.
For all the horrors, they probably did make some progress with experiments in concentration camps.
They did. Read about Unit 731. Unquestionably inhumane experiments yielded breakthroughs in human-pathogen interactions that substantially advanced the field. However, it goes without question that no amount of knowledge justified the means.
https://www.pacificatrocities.org/human-experimentation.html
That is an opinion by definition. Facts can be proven true or false. “Better off” is a subjective sentiment. How very unscientific of you.
Of course it can, just as science has the ability to do the same. Do we brand all scientists as unethical because of Unit 731 or the Nuremberg trials? Ironically, this entire thread is very unscientific in its criticism of the religious.
Read my previous comment. I asked for them to find me an article where a Buddhist hurt someone trying to fly. Employing condescension only really works if you’re accurate. Otherwise you just seem like an ass.
So you’re saying that you want separation from religion. Why can’t they have that from you? I agree that religion doesn’t belong in government. What about that justifies extermination of religion?
I didn’t ask about self harm. I asked about others. Are you afraid you’re going to harm yourself, or that a religious person could harm you? How is an individual’s beliefs your business if they don’t impact you? You sincerely believe that the way to solve religious persecution by some is to persecute all of the religious?
Way to project. Find me articles on Buddhists harming people because they think they can fly. While I’m waiting, would you like me to provide scientific research that resulted in harm?
You can’t have it both ways. If you want boundaries that protect you from the religious, then you yourself must respect the same boundary.
That’s where atheists overstep. Why does it matter what someone believes if it has no effect on you? Isn’t that exactly what you criticize the religious of doing?
Buddhism is one of the world’s largest religions and originated 2,500 years ago in India.
Many religions are. The ones that focus inward to better yourself are not bothering anyone. When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Edit: The self-righteousness of some atheists is truly hypocritical. Persecution is wrong, whether it’s of an atheist by a religious person, or vice versa. Yet another reason to be disappointed in my fellow man, I guess.
Thank you for the detail! I just repeated the dumbed-down explanation given to me by my allergist.
I just confirmed. They’re only 17 atoms in size. My memory failed me. I edited the comment. Thanks for the correction!
*Histamines. Antibodies are far less disruptive. Histamines protect us from larger invaders like worms and other parasites. Antihistamines antagonize histamines at receptor sites, preventing the itchy, red, swelling reaction we associate with an allergen.
We’re cattle. Republicans are gutting social programs and disease prevention, forcing the births of unwanted children, and repealing child labor laws. They are breeding us while culling the weak.
In an ideal world, the Secretary of Defense and the town drunk are two different people.
I’ve seen that sentiment floating around, so you’re not alone there. Good on you for verifying!