ydoaPs

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4124271 I have no idea why this is needed. Anyone got the scoop?

The US Constitution outlined how THIS government will willingly change, not how it became what it is. The DoI clearly states in the same passage detailing the inalienable rights that we also have the right to overthrow corrupt governments. I quoted it. It was giving a reason for what they did. How did they do it? Mob rule and guerilla warfare. That it is the People who control how they are governed is the very basis of our existence as Americans. To object to the Egyptians rights to do the same is blatantly anti-American. The TEA Party could have used this revolution as a great tool, but one of their prophets(Glenn Beck) would rather make up baseless conspiracy theories. Sorry TEA Party. Then again, it's not really their style of revolution. That's bull. They were committing treason and they knew it. They knew when signing it that the DoI was their death warrant should they not win freedom. Was that before they got whipped by a bunch of guerilla farmers? And the Stamp Act affected the price of what? That's right, food! So, the Democrats went and willingly of their own accord without any help from the Republicans changed their awesome healthcare plan to make it what the Republicans wanted for years? THAT makes sense.

The very essence of America is the idea that, to quote the fictional character V, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people!". You're going to sit there and tell me that America has no factual basis of the People revolting against an oppressive government? So, you slept through history class, then? I'll fill you in a little bit. A long time ago in a land far far away, England decided it wanted to have colonies in a remote land. Eventually, the people of those colonies grew unhappy with the leadership, revolted, and created their own government. They sent England a letter, a Declaration even, telling the King about it. In fact, there was even a war fought over this. But, yeah, you're right. There's no founding principle of America about overthrowing unjust rulers......if you completely ignore the history of America. That sounds familiar. You know what they should have done? They should have dumped a bunch of tea in the water during one of the protests! So, should the president have lied and said the majority of the protesters were elderly people and the protests were to keep things exactly the same? Or is he just not allowed to talk about change since it was part of his campaign? Oh, you're not happy with the change that didn't actually happen because the Obama administration bent over backwards compromising with the Republican children in Congress? That's a bit odd.

When I was a youngling, we had routine lice exams at school. Whenever the school nurse would come in and announce the check, almost everyone(regardless of whether or not they had ever actually had lice) suffered from the phantom itch. It's odd that you wouldn't associate it with itching; did you also not know anyone who had had lice?

Apparently not.

Glenn Beck recently went off about Obama's support of the Egyptian people. He was upset because the People created fundamental change in the Government. But, isn't that the basic idea behind the very existence of the USA? Oh, but Obama used the word 'change' in his campaign slogan, so it has to be evil. Why would someone who claims to love America so much hate her founding principle?

Do we still have the two separate versions of LaTeX on the site? IIRC, we had the [math][/math] tags and another set for having equations inside blocks of text.

Dude, there are these things called sentences.

Then you were talking about the electric universe. Either you were or you weren't; pick one.

It is simply 1 divided by that variable.

I didn't say it was inappropriate; I said it was irrelevant. And, according to your previous statement, it is. You said you weren't talking about the Electric Universe crackpottery in a post in which you had embedded a video of said crackpottery.

You should probably refrain from embedding irrelevant videos if you'd like to be understood more clearly.

[math]\frac{a^2+1}{a+1}[/math] is fully simplified. You can only cross out terms that cancel. The ones don't cancel because they're being added instead of multiplied.

That's actually an experiment that's been done. However, you need a measuring device as well. In this case, it was two uncharged plates. The 'vacuum energy' that pulls the plates together is due to virtual particles popping into existence from nothingness. However, this is unrelated to the OP. It's a case of the right answer for the wrong reason.

Iirc, new members are sent a PM with a link to the rules and etiquette guidelines. The guidelines have a link(when talking about formatting posts) to the thread to which you linked above.

Well, there's two outliers as far as bias. Those would be FOX and MSNBC, although FOX is much farther right than MSNBC is left. CNN has a history of being neutral or as close to neutral as possible, however with FOX's recent uptake in the crazy, they've shifted left slightly. What your friend was talking about probably wasn't bias. It was probably the deceit, deliberate manipulation, and blatant lies from FOX. Yes, CNN is better than FOX.

No. 1/0 does not exist. Given f=1/x, as x approaches +0, f approaches +infinity. As x approaches -0, f approaches -infinity. There is no limit of f as x approaches 0 since the left limit and the right limit give different values. 1/0 is undefined. You can see this graphically, since it f=1/x will make a hyperbola.

Yes. Young Earth Creationists are also allowed to speak at Universities. It just depends on how much they're willing to pay.

This sounds like a modified twin paradox. With no acceleration breaking symmetry, both frames do in fact see the other as being slower than their own.

Yep, you sure are. I'm glad it didn't take more than 2 pages for you to figure that out.

I already did....multiple times. 31% has two cars <25% has NO car How on Earth does that statistically amount to the average person having two cars? That's right, it doesn't....at all. So, I'll say again, the statistics Pangloss posted directly contradict his statement.

And that you were blatantly wrong. Good job.

How would history be different if written by the other side of various conflicts? Take, for instance, Pokemon: http://imgur.com/gallery/wVGGX

No, all that proves is that the universe was designed so that I'd have my current high score on Angry Birds on my iPad!

And what you just bolded invalidated the other part of the statement. By your sweet math skills and the bolded statement, we can say that the average person in this 'poor' category(regardless of whether or not it actually means someone below the poverty line) has no car. So, how do we know if the average is no car or two?