English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

8 answers

You know what they say about caffeine? it makes you taste nice... (or is that taste terrible?) come over and i will tell you!

2007-08-05 12:38:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

There could easily not be an I.Q. requirement for voters. An I.Q. try, you're able to bear in mind, could be fairly erroneous. you're able to bear in mind that there at the instant are not any mentally deficcient human beings marching down the streets while it comes time to vote. maximum have not the physique of techniques to correctly known what day that's, and distinctive don't be able to carry on with the presidential debates and distinctive speeches. And maximum mentally retarded electorate are institutionalized, and are hence not allowed to vote. Many others are homeless simply by deinstitutionalization, and are too busy (A) attempting to stay to tell the tale or (B) being lost of their own psychological inefficiency to care approximately or comprehend the place and while vote casting occurs. while you're concerning somebody who's only "stupid" or "moronic," then the respond remains a vehement "NO". by means of limiting who can or can't vote, you're turning out to be extra social castes: people who're considered certifiably unintelligent, and people who're sufficient or above. by means of doing so, you're putting the precedent for destiny castes to be created. Why could it only be "stupid" and "elementary+"? Why not provide much extra rights to those that have an I.Q. above, enable's say, one hundred twenty? Then people who're above, possibly, one hundred forty? you're categorizing human beings, which leads, unavoidably, lower back to slavery. It sounds radical to think of that by means of only passing a regulation that xI.Q. are allowed to vote and yI.Q. are not is by some ability maximum advantageous us lower back to slavery, yet think of: how did slavery finally end up in the 1st place? human beings have been concept to be inferrior by means of alternative individuals, the two simply by fact of a loss of intelligence, a loss of civlization, breeding, or perhaps epidermis colour, and have been hence forced into (frequently) unpaid servitude. simply by fact somebody isn't as clever as your self does not recommend that they are inferrior. and because somebody can't formulate a sentence wisely or pose a valid question (or decide a thank you to get Caps Lock off...) does not recommend that they at the instant are not as clever as you. if truth be told, many "clever" all of us is complete dolts politically. you at the instant are not the single to choose who can or can't have specific rights.

2016-11-11 05:55:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Try as hard as they might, they can't come to an agreement. The last they published, it was between 8-10 servings a day. And a serving was 16 oz...........

2007-08-04 12:47:04 · answer #3 · answered by Out on a limb (aka Sharonc)II 3 · 2 0

nope. to much caffeine will blow out your heat faster.

2007-08-05 06:03:43 · answer #4 · answered by celticdragon 6 · 1 0

I hope not and if they have I don't want to know. lol

2007-08-04 12:45:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

who cares what they say!!i'll have as much coffee as i want!:)

2007-08-04 13:55:07 · answer #6 · answered by ....FED UP............ 7 · 2 0

hope not

2007-08-04 12:44:48 · answer #7 · answered by holgánza 2 · 2 0

NO....AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. BUT I THINK STARBUCKS HAS.

2007-08-04 12:47:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers