I would assume that, in your scenario, the person wouldn't regain consciousness when they start breathing. They would start breathing because they had lost control sufficiently to pass out, would exhale, would inhale a quantity of oxygen-free air, and so would not improve their oxygen levels. They would continue down the path to suffocation. Continuing breathing isn't going to improve their physical state, although it will be less uncomfortable than holding their breath.

WTF do you need a /48 for? A /64 isn't big enough for you?

and the Ewoks too. And so did every kid who saw those movies. Meesa think yousa stinker!

the problem is it's easy to get funding to build housing for disadvantaged people because it's a cash cow for developers. It's _much_, _much_ harder to get funding for the kinds of long term services that dirt poor people need to succeed, let alone get through the sorts of things they'd need to have secure and stable jobs (e.g. protection for local industries, Unions, workers rights laws, etc). We put people into homes without giving them any means to support themselves or the home we put them in. You saw this with the projects in the 70s when we moved a ton sharecroppers into the city and then Regan got elected and all the funding to help build them up got cut. You're seeing it today with those ghost towns built in China. It's the same thing. Cronyism builds the housing and demand for low taxes abandons it and the people in it.

the reason we're not seeing an increase in testing scores (which is what you mean by "discernible improvement") is because we've allowing more and more people into higher education since the 70s. Basically we started a "war on poverty" and stopped abandoning the poor to their fates. Before they wouldn't even make it into high school, let alone college. No schooling for disadvantaged children meant no test scores for disadvantaged children.

A little googling and you'd easily find this article explaining it. But it's much more fun to complain about paying taxes (which is the subtext of your post) than look at root causes...

Yeah! Because using your own [massive disparity of] wealth to [give an unfair advantage to] your own children is EVIL!

FTFY.

I live in Phoenix, Az, and you'll literally see $1 million homes next to trailer parks. The funny thing is there's no bleed over. The poors stay in their neck of the woods and keep their misery to themselves. I'm guessing whenever one of 'em gets out of line the local sheriff goes down and busts everyone's heads. That's one of the unstated benefits of our drug policy. Just about everyone I knew who was poor used drugs to cope, and it made it really easy to bust them if the cops wanted to...

I think they kiddies call It call "Street Legal"

Clearly, the patent is for sticking a feather in one's hat.

it's been the only way anti-death penalty folks could make even the slightest bit of progress in the States. The problem is how our politics work, which is all about getting people to vote and vote for you. The pro crowd will vote against you if they think you're against the death penalty. They'll see you as "soft" on crime. For the most part the anti-death penalty crowd doesn't care. They've got other issues that matter more than how they perceive your stance on crime.

Isn't the psychological term for it "projection"?

*I* do it, therefore you must do it too!

They should have known there was a problem when they found brown M&Ms in the break room candy dishes.

Do you have a link to the murdering bitch's retraction?

From Wikipedia:

The AFL-CIO was a major component of the New Deal Coalition that dominated politics into the mid-1960s.[8] Although it has lost membership, finances, and political clout since 1970, it remains a major player on the liberal side of national politics, with a great deal of activity in lobbying, coordinating with other liberal organizations, fund-raising, and recruiting and supporting candidates around the country.

If you haven't heard anything from them it's because you haven't been listening. They are very active on workers rights.

And there's two sides to the coin. Why should you benefit from their hard work campaigning for higher wages without contributing to the fight? Read up a little bit about the history of the American Work pre-Unions. What was the phrase? Nasty, brutish and short.

False equivalency is False