Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't finish the video. After about 3 and half minutes, it became clear this had nothing to do with the topic, and frankly, I already got that after the first 30 seconds, but I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt. But a not very funny satirist can only keep my attention for so long.
We've already discussed this though. Technically, the state can benefit from it. The question now is: is that actually even happening. I'm not so sure it is, nor do I think we're very far in the process if it has.
Yes.
I saw it in passing through the Science mag recent topic publications. Remembered a post by GHOSTRIDER AZ where they had said something about putting civil rights and equal protection to a vote.
Found the article (one doesn't have to pay for one) and did a quick post. Later, saw the retraction.
Quote:
Update, 10 a.m Eastern, 5/22/15: LaCour sent us (and others) this message:
I will supply a definitive response (including a timeline of events) on or before May 29, 2015. I appreciate your patience, as I gather evidence and relevant information, since I only became aware of the allegations about my work on the evening of May 19, 2015, when the not peer-reviewed comments in “Irregularities in LaCour (2014),” were posted publicly online.
I must note, however, that despite what many have printed, Science has not published a retraction of my article with Professor Green. I sent a statement to Science Editor McNutt this evening, providing information as to why I stand by the findings in LaCour & Green (2014). I’ve requested that if Science editor McNutt publishes Professor’s Green’s retraction request, she publish my statement with it.
It would have been a good find, (provide voters response in that situation) if the data gathered had been validated.
We've already discussed this though. Technically, the state can benefit from it. The question now is: is that actually even happening. I'm not so sure it is, nor do I think we're very far in the process if it has.
By diminishing the importance of the nuclear family, the incidence of children born out of wedlock (or if you prefer, "to single-parent households") goes up. Single parents are under especial pressure given the brutal labor market for all but specialized and skilled labor, which only benefits a small percentage of the population. It doesn't help that the economic elite overlaps with demographics that are less likely to have children out of wedlock. Given these conditions it logically follows that there is the creation of an underclass that is entirely reliant on government benefits. The cultural and political implications of this are not to be underestimated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
