. . . if we would pare down the population to 2 billion.

If we let the current Ebola outbreaks take their course, we could reach that goal fairly quickly rather than the 60 years you propose.

Unfortunately there are those who might think allowing this to happen would not be the most efficient way to get us to that population level.

You drive 400 miles, each way, 3 times a week? I'm presuming you're a trucker or something similar and not a masochist.

Her ego is big enough it shouldn't be hard to track from space.

Her ego? Have you seen how fat her ass is? Her ego looks like a pimple next to the ostrich egg which is her ass.

What an agreeble culture!

Yes, they're so agreeable that no one visits beaches after September 1st.

From the article:

"Many of us are so submissive to authority that we will never think to challenge the status quo," says Sato.

Indoctrination starts at school. Children are drilled: "Follow the rules. Don't be selfish. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."

Considering people don't read the 2nd Amendment correctly, there shouldn't be a problem with misreading the 1st.

Both in words and actions the Colonial government required people to register with their local authorities whether or not they had a gun so they could be called up to suppress insurrection or protect the state (PA has that written explicitly in its Constitution. Article 1, section 20. Also, go read The Federalist Papers where calling up the militia, using their own guns, was mentioned several times by Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution).

Yet apparently what was good enough for the originating government isn't good enough for us so people read only the part of the Amendment they want to read and ignore the rest.

Pretty convenient, huh?

Indeed I did, but people who have invested in their worldviews have this nasty habit of only seeing what they want to see.

This is why soccer (European football) is so much better to watch. No commercials. The game plays until the time runs out.

Instead of a 1 hour game of football (American), it runs to well over twice that amount, not including the pre and post pontifications.

Here's the way pro football works. Flip the coin to decide who kicks off. Go to commercial. Come back from commercial and have kick off. Four seconds elapse then play is ended. Go to commercial.

Have first three plays of game. Go to commercial. Punt ball away or get second series. Rinse and repeat.

Because in civilization no one would dare think to use a knife, steel pipe, baseball bat, wrench, box cutter, hammer, screwdriver, ice pick, awl, straight razor or any number of commonly found items to use in a robbery.

It's only guns you have to worry about.

Different person here. This is in line with my own personal morality and absolutely correct. My life is mine to do with as I please. I am free to do whatever I want whenever I want, provided that the consequences are SOLELY confined to consenting adults (generally that would be just me).

Anything else is an evil desire to control other people, with the approval you get from your own conscience, by convincing yourself it's for their own good, so you can pat yourself on the back and feel like a good person. The typical lack of reasoning ability, wisdom or long-term thinking in most people today and the general shallow thinking of the popular culture sadly promotes and legitimizes this inability to be satisfied with one's own life while respecting that others will live theirs as they please and realizing that telling people how they should live has never worked in the first place (c.f. Prohibition) so there should not even be a debate about this.

Someone who cannot responsibly use things (usually due to either a lack of personal maturity and self-knowledge, and/or an inability to deal with one's own life that causes them to reach for drugs as a quick-fix "remedy") has a problem. There are many others who use drugs the same way you might come home from work and drink a beer and stay home. Like Bill Hicks pointed out, it sure is strange the way you never hear about responsible drug users on the news or see them portrayed on shows. That would contradict all the fear propaganda and think-of-the-children rhetoric. Pay attention and you'll notice that the major mass media outlets will generally never contradict either: each other, or anything that faciltiates control. Adult people who are expected to make their own decisions about their own lives in a responsible manner, without being told how to live, absolutely does not facilitate control. Qui bono?

Timothy Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs and off the top of my head I can also see Warren Buffet never worked for Goldman Sachs or the Obama administration, Robert Rubin never worked for Obama, Rogert Altman has neither worked at Goldman Sachs or the Obama administration.

Might want to check that list again to see what other missteps are there.

Considering Bush and his Attorney General didn't have a problem with gutting the Constitution, don't see why the next AG couldn't do the same. Precedent had already been set.

Well yeah! Have to make some extra money on the side.

Obviously that scenario would not be legal, but putting cameras in your house to see what the babysitter is doing or to see if anyone breaks in is perfectly legal.

This wouldn't be any different from putting hidden cameras in your house when the babysitter is over. You're not in a public place, so you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Nope, wrong. It's your house. You can put all the cameras you want inside of it. There are no restrictions.

There have been several cases where people hid cameras in their house to catch babysitters or others doing things and there is no issue with them doing it.

The general answer to all your questions is no. You can't build a house on any plot of land you feel like. I'm sure someone with more knowledge will correct me, but the basic route to building a house on a piece of land, as opposed to buying an already existing house, is:

1) Buy the land. This generally involves you and a broker but it could also be done through private parties (i.e. from you to me). In either case there is a record of who owns what, the amount they paid and, most importantly, a record with the local government of who now owns the land

This last step is crucial as it prevents an agent from selling the same piece of property to different people or someone building on someone else's land.

2) Find a home builder. Once you own the land you have to find someone to build your house unless you're going to do it yourself. Regardless, this involves filings with your local government to make sure the building meets the local requirements for water and sewer (whether on the land or through the public service), certain structural designs and so on. Since every municipality is different, some are more lenient than others but you still have to notify them you're going to build your house so they can determine how much tax you will pay on it (again, depending on the municipality. Some places don't charge tax on property, others do).

The 4th Amendment does not enter into this in any way. The 4th Amendment only comes into play once you have your property. The police can't walk in just to see if you're doing anything wrong.

To sum up, if you're building a house anywhere in the U.S. you have to file enough paperwork that everyone will know about it. If by chance you were able to build a house without anyone realizing it and were then found out, you'd have a lot of legal issues to take care of.

neo-liberal notion that more liquidity in an economy always benefits all actors

Neo-liberal? It under Bush who signed off the government using taxpayer money to add more money into the system, first by giving the money to the very people who created the financial crisis, then secondly by dropping the interest rate to near zero.

But let me guess, you subscribe to the voodoo of trickle down economics where those at the top graciously give those at the bottom whatever scraps fall from the table.