Though really, I don't think I need another water type against the Elite Four.

Right. And if only the pesky meddling government would stop interfering, they wouldn't be legally obligated. That's fixes things, right?

It isn't just semantics. Incorporation confers many actual functional differences from free forming groups, even excepting taxation, which free forming groups do not have. You can imagine a fantasy world where this is not true, just please don't confuse it with the actual one we live in.

For this to be true, Libertarians will need to back the dissolution of all corporations. Corporations are, after all, a charter granted by the government (which, in theory, is acting on behalf of the collective citizenry).

This is a provably false assertion. I know a large number of free citizens who do not own weapons.

It was corporate interests that sold Americans on the idea that Capitalism went hand in hand with Christianity. I love the irony of Christianity arguing back. (It isn't just the pope, there have been some fundamentalist groups making the same basic argument recently).

The existence of hubs makes the question moot for normal daily usage. But when you need to do repairs or diagnostics, being able to boot from a usb drive and plug in a second usb drive to transfer files is always nice.

So you're saying there are no illegal aliens in the US?

I'm willing to throw in with the anti-meter spelling police if they will band together and join me in purging the internet of definately.

finite.definite.definitely.This has nothing to do with anyone named Nate.

While I (vaguely) understand the notion that you are asserting, if the value of people can fluctuate (that is, human life has no intrinsic value), then what is the value standard in such a marketplace? Gold? dollars?

This also leads to a rather dismal world in which some murders are ok, and some are slightly more ok than others. Of the choices of available dystopias, this one sounds less appealing than average.

If an individual life has negative value, then the total number of lives worth saving is 0, and there's no reason to care whether a particular act causes an increase in suffering or not.

Let's say we transplant Bob's head onto Steve's body. After the surgery, will Bob say he has a new body, or will Steve say he has a new head? (Hint: don't believe anything Steve says. He's talking through his ass.)

This is exactly my point. They passed a law which is in violation of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass a law making it illegal to vote if you are under the age of 30. They can't just pass a law to make Presbyterianism the official state religion. These things would require an amendment to the Constitution. How is this different?

I know our news media do a poor job of covering important stories, but I totally missed hearing about the US Constitution being amended to allow this.

Prior to that amendment, only congress could declare war. Wait, there was no amendment? Congress should not be able to overrule this requirement without amending the constitution. Otherwise, what do we ever need amendments for? Just pass any law you want, any time you want.

Vitamin B-12 is water soluble. The supplement you take doesn't last anywhere near a week. If you take it with coffee, it probably remains in your body a couple of hours at most.