PaintedSnail

Oh, well, carry on, then. Carry on.

The ambiguity was by design. It let the test proctor decide who did or did not pass with near impunity. This was used to legally deny voting rights to minorities.

It's good to know that we have advanced as a society. We're talking about now, not 80 years ago.

You also seem to be under the impression that making a "correct" choice would be without consequences. It would be nice if the moral or legal choice always had positive consequences for the chooser, but that's not always the case. That doesn't chance the morality or legality of the choice. Yes, soldiers have been persecuted for disobeying an illegal order; either legally or socially; but that doesn't change their duty.

(Also, David McBride was arrested for releasing confidential documents, something that is very much illegal. We can debate the morality, but that's not relevant here because it's not remotely related to a soldier refusing to follow illegal orders.)

A soldier following an illegal order may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to not follow illegal orders. A doctor choosing to not treat patients because they don't like something about them may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to treat all patients.

A doctor's agency does not supersede another's right to live. A doctor doesn't get to choose who lives or dies; and yes, even requiring that the doctor refer the patient to a different doctor would result in people dying.

A soldier's job includes disobeying illegal orders. That's the law. Try again.

Because it was an active investigation. If they released the investigation files, it would have fucked over the court case to convict them. It wasn't until recently that the Trump-controlled DoJ said "okay, we're done. Nothing to see here." Now that there's no longer an investigation, there's no longer a reason to withhold the files.

And before you say that they deliberately took too long to avoid releasing them, remember that the Democrats believed they had time to finish the investigation properly, but Trump's elections screwed that; and that when dealing with people with this much power, you need a case that is more than air tight, and that takes a lot of time given who is involved. Unless you believe the Democrats could have stalled though a second term (obviously Trump couldn't).

Oh, and if the Dems actually wanted to avoid this whole thing, they could have much more believably said "nope, nothing here," but instead they chose to push forward.

Thank you for that inspiring addition to the conversation.

We know we can Google it, but asking questions is what creates discussion.

Unless they wear a whig.

I tip when there is actual service. Deliver my pizza so I don't have to drive out to get it? Sure, I'll tip. Making sure I have enough napkins and my coffee is kept topped up? Absolutely there's a tip. Making the food and handing it to me at the counter? That's not service, that's just giving me what I paid for, so no tip.

It would be nice if tipping went away for the service jobs at well and they were paid a proper wage, but that isn't happening any time soon. Long term changes can't sacrifice short term needs to the point where there is no long term left to change, and waiters need to eat.

Lucky. I have my PS3, and I'm having a horrible time finding decent replacement controllers. You can't use the new DualShocks, and compatible controllers you can buy are built so cheaply they don't work very well.

Nah. That would piss off the mailroom employees, but they don't control who gets sent mail. The weight costing money does hurt the people who make the marketing decisions, though.

Blame Kellogg

For the most part, the only real restriction is that you have to have cash on hand to settle any purchases that day regardless of any sales. The next day all the transactions settle and you can continue. So you just have to keep a larger cash reserve if you're going to do a lot of swing trading.

Some brokers are more flexible with that and will cover you as long as your trades don't put your cash in the negative, but that's up to the broker to manage the risk of a failed transaction.

Or so I understand it.