Full representation in the legislature is contingent upon whether people agree with you? That's a bit undemocratic, don't you think? The cities you mentioned, by themselves, are over 5% of the population.
Since California is net negative on federal funds (they pay in a bit more than comes...
The population will continue to divide regardless of who's president. We don't really have anything in common from which to forge a national identity anymore. That's not a bad thing, but just the way it is.
That one, and Eisenstadt. Judge for yourself, skip to 6:24:
https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2016/05/caffeinated-thoughts-radio-5-14-16-guests-steve-king-daniel-ladoux/
You can contemplate whether those cases were decided correctly; you're the lawyer, not me. But whether they represent society...
*raises hand
I have to decide which party represents me. When you have a GOP Representative saying that allowing married couples to use contraception is society "going downhill", then I have to ask: is this what I want to get behind? Is this the party that I want to lend legitimacy to?
I...
I have a takeoff from a PSA upper that I'm not using. I don't know the gas port size, so I can't guarantee it's exactly what you want, but you can have it (it's not doing anyone any good sitting in my parts box).
PM me and I'll get your shipping info. Thanks!
So, just as Indiana gets rolling as a tech hub thanks to low cost of living and a near-infinitely-portable product, you're going to torpedo that by making Hoosiers a legal landmine for national corporations? So much for the party of smart fiscal decisions.
You would think that firearm owners, of all people, would understand the importance of judging something on its merits instead of assuming that a thing must be banned because someone, somewhere, could possibly do something bad with it.
I already said that I'd be behind a solution that wouldn't involve redefining anything. But that didn't end up happening, so we're stuck with the present situation for the foreseeable future.
Besides, "we've always done it this way" is hardly a compelling argument. We also used to only let men...
How is the government supposed to enforce the law if they don't define the language? If religion defines marriage, then the government becomes the enforcement arm of the church. Better the law be repealed entirely than let that happen.
Personally, I would have preferred that we turn marriage over to the religious, and simply enact civil unions for all (gay or straight); it really makes no difference to me what the legal term for my relationship with my spouse is. But if we're not going to do that, then having separate...