sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
homes for sale
for sale by owner
post your listing
If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
If you're looking for full-on kink or group play, you'll get what you need here.
Of course, Cedar Creek was a Civil War battle in which Vermonters gave their lives, in great part, to free the slaves. Vermonters sacrificed more sons per capita to the cause than any other state. Maybe a comment about these historical facts would have been pertinent, along with the "paintings of dead white men" comment.
I look forward to your comprehensive interviews next week putting every Democratic candidate on the spot to see if they support Bill Clinton's past conduct, and Hillary Clinton's creative relationship with the truth and smarmy relationships with Wall Street and the mainstream media.
That is what we call burying the lede. The last sentence of the Scott piece: "And to be honest with you, I'm a staunch Phil Scott supporter, and I'm gonna vote for him."
Oh, anonymous mythical seer from Delphi, pray tell where in my post I reveal that I don't "believe" in science. Of course, science isn't supposed to be a belief system at all, is it?
Putting aside the "Loyalty Oath" aspect of this climate change issue (Trump is evil and un-American for suggesting a Loyalty Oath for immigrants with reference to the US, but such an oath regarding climate change is de rigueur), can someone explain to me how Scott's previous statement and your summary of the current science are the least bit inconsistent. "'I believe the science is real,' Scott responded during the online event. 'Climate change is happening. And I believe as well it is a combination of man-made contributions as well as a natural phenomenon.'" You then claim that the following summary of the science is diametrically opposed to what Scott said: "Most scientists would disagree with that assessment. According to NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, humans are LARGELY responsible for the warming planet."
Use of the term "largely responsible" explicitly contemplates that there are other factors at work, with human-made causes being the largest contributor. Yet, in an effort to continue with the press's lazy meme that all Republicans are troglodytes, Scott's phraseology -- which is entirely consistent with the scientific statement you trumpet -- is deemed somehow to be sufficient heresy that a burning at the stake or general public shaming is warranted absent his prompt and complete conversion to acceptable thinking and language.
Oddly, the scientific method and small "l" liberal education used to encourage critical thinking and the perpetual testing of hypotheses. No more. 100% obeisance is required, all in the name of "science" as declared by partisan politicians and researchers dependent upon them for research dollars.
The Chittenden County mega-district is an abomination. These sorts of multi-member at-large districts have been invalidated throughout the South through the years as the preferred way for whites to deny minorities proportionate representation. Since Vermont Republicans aren't protected by the Voting Rights Act, however, they can apparently be victimized through the same tactic. A 51% majority can seat 6 out of 6 senators in a mega-district, and voters in the urban core can dictate Senators for the suburbs and beyond. How convenient.....
It would be quite simple to divide the state into nothing but 2- and 3-member districts, making all Senate districts comparable in size and scope, while still coinciding with most county boundaries with minor tweaks: North Chittenden (3), Burlington (2), South Chittenden (2), Addison (2), Rutland (3), Bennington (2), Windham (2), Windsor (3), Caledonia/Orange/Essex (3), Washington (3), Orleans/Lamoille (2), Franklin/Grand Isle (3). Ask a legislator or other state leader for a good reason why not to do that.
Very informative article in that it explains how a firearm can be purchased in the real world. But your article does not explain how someone with criminal intent would not be more than willing to violate the law in order to acquire a weapon. If you're prepared to kill dozens of strangers, you probably won't hit a moral roadblock when it comes to violating gun regulations. Nor does it explain how various gun control regulations that have been proposed would have -- again, in the real world -- actually prevented any of the mass shootings we have experienced the last several years. A complex issue with no easy, pat answers -- much to our politicians' chagrin.
All Comments »