I used to work for a guy who was never wrong. He didn't talk much but when he did say something, it was always correct. He still hedged a lot, so he would say "I'm not sure you're right; I think the answer might be X." What that meant was "You are certainly mistaken and the only reasonable answer is X."
ArbitraryValue
He married her and he wants her to convert, but there's no reason to think that he married her for the purpose of converting her.
So people want him to (1) believe that the Catholic faith is essential for eternal salvation but also (2) not care whether or not his wife is Catholic? That wouldn't make any sense. Of course any Catholic who cares about his loved ones is going to hope that they convert to Catholicism.
True, but I still think it's interesting to consider if some of these people wouldn't have been willing to vote for something with consequences. Or if some people who didn't vote for this would have been willing to vote for something with consequences.
The legislation passed in a 52-48 vote, with five Republicans – senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and the former Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky – joining all Democrats in favor.
I wonder which of these Republicans would still vote for this if it weren't an empty gesture.
The PSF is (presumably) already required to comply with Federal anti-discrimination laws. Am I misreading the text or does it not actually create any new obligations for the PSF if they were to accept the grant?
These tax savings come at the cost of having to live off of a small fraction of one's net worth. That provides a social benefit - a fortune that isn't being spent is like a loan to society. Consider, for example, a person with two hundred million dollars of assets. He has the option of selling those assets, paying a tax of, say, eighty million dollars, and then buying a hundred and twenty million dollars of stuff right now. He also has the option of spending ten million dollars per year tax free forever. The latter is worth incentivising - maybe it's not worth incentivising to the extent that it is right now, but a discussion of tax policy without any mention of that is incomplete.
Only the foreign objects need to be removed. British rectums are for British objects.
It's just two House Republicans, at least so far. Just par for the course of Republicans proposing things like this.
This severe conflict of interests is unlikely to get the attention that it should because objecting to paying soldiers is not a good look for someone who wants to be re-elected. But I hope that I'm wrong, because the potential to compromise America's security interests is huge here.
 
          
          
As far as I know, mandatory use of biofuels is primarily a subsidy for farmers rather than a means of reducing emissions. I'm surprised to see an urban area focus on it.
It sounds like Portland is making an effort to avoid the farm-subsidy sort of biofuels, but then what is it actually demanding that biofuels be made from?