Yes, they would have. Maybe not in the same fashion, but Blockbuster was one of the companies that was in bed with Enron when Enron was getting into the broadband bandwidth trading business. Interesting that both are now history.
Or clip their spines with snips like Kermit Gosnell did; we don't even have to cut off their feet and keep them pickled in a jar. If it's good enough for millions of babies a year, it's good enough for a criminal.
May it cause everyone to rethink ending a baby's life out of some misguided sense of "social responsibility" and convenience.
(The, um, unimpressive... build quality and design standards of 3d printed weapons may also be a factor: if you are hunting parts for firearms that are made out of shitty plastic, to a level of quality that would shame your average zipgun and make a 'saturday night special' look like some sort of futuristic H&K design concept, you may be inclined to consider the absence of 'normal' features to be mere shodiness, rather than a sign that it's a different part entirely.)
Yes, a maker-whatever 3D printer in your garage cannot be expected to make a decent firearm, even by the most liberal definition of a firearm, but it is enough to make a drop-in auto sear conversion to modify an existing semi-auto to full auto that would at least be good for one spray in a drive-by. Then print as many as you like. That's what a more practical criminal mind would be inclined to do.
Except it's missing the hook that catches the trigger. I understand that UK cops don't really carry firearms, so they may not really be trained in the inner workings of different guns. I don't know much about what their training standards are, but I'd say it's an easy mistake to make for those who don't disassemble firearms very often. See below:
When the state is your god, you consider it sovereign over all and turn over your will, freedom, respect, devotion and everything you can offer to have it protect you, feed you and care for you. The statist masterminds have yet to achieve this version of heaven they have dreamt up, and they have no interest in mitigating anything. It is the new "moral" imperative to hurt the many to help a few and nationalizing healthcare is key to doing so. See below:
And they don't think it's dead in the water, they're just going to take their time in doing it.
and show my friends, enemies and vague acquaintances how interesting, joyful, and insightful my life is? Especially compared to others. You can't do all those things with just a mirror, or around the watercooler!
I wonder what's going on at Google+...
The better way of putting that would be that instead of sitting on cash, the SS Trust Fund bought US government bonds which will be paid back to them just like all of the other bonds as long as we don't let the Republicans have their way. The surplus was accrued by design because the trustees were well aware of the fact that Baby Boomers will get old. As long as we don't do something stupid like default on our debt, Social Security is just like any other pension plan that holds US bonds.
Yes. I too prefer to live beyond my means on credit cards and panic when something unexpected happens instead of having a cash reserve. That's a blissful way to live indeed. That's how I achieved my dreams of staring at code for 10 hours a day instead of being a millionaire, which I could have been by now.
I get it that having cash sitting around is not necessarily great considering the policy is to intentionally devalue the currency, but it does not promote strength and growth and it's awfully short-sighted. Our children and their children will judge us harshly for going along with this.
Who said the Treasury would have the authority? That's Congress' job; constitutionally they have the power of the purse. They're the "elected representatives" in this representative republic (for what it's worth).
And who said anything about pulling support for Gov't backed loans? How about not getting into the ones that are deemed too risky or not viable from the get go, instead of approving them anyways because we must "go green" at any cost? Like Solyndra; they knew they'd never compete with Chinese cells on cost and that their business plan was not viable during the application process; and knew they were not going to survive even before they finished building the $200M manufacturing facilities.
I expressed a general fact and pointed out that there are many places to start when it comes to defining priorities. You're trying to shoot down an idea based on fact, not a plan.
I wish someone would stop propagating this lie.
Not raising the debt ceiling means that the government would have to do something many of us do all the time; live within its means. On a monthly basis we bring in 10 times more revenue than necessary to service the debt. Another 10% of the monthly revenue would service pensions and other such obligations. There's plenty of money for the basics including granny's Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. But there won't be enough money for all the less-than-essential bureaucracy, subsidies to political allies, government-backed loans for this or that, the gaggle of entitlements, ad nauseum. That's why we saw the political equivalent of the tantrum when an addict sees all the people in the room and knows he's in for an intervention.
Only if the President instructs the Treasury Department NOT to service the debt do we ACTUALLY go into default. At which point he runs afoul of this 14th Amendment, at which point he could very well be impeached. Again, we only go into default if the President wants to.
Fundamentalists have no tolerance for anybody that thinks differently (including members of the same religion) and are easily incited to kill, maim and slaughter everybody perceived by them to be "different". That is the problem with religion: Depending on infection degree (meme infection), intellectual capabilities, empathy and common decency get suspended and replaced by easy recipes that often involve strong forms of aggression.
And no, I am not intellectually lazy, rather you did not understand what I wrote.
I understood what you said as an incredibly narrow characterization of behavior and disposition of people of faith, focused on the limited dimension of aggression in conflict, as if that were the most dominant human social experience. For those of us who live generally full lives with different kinds of interactions, it is not. I've set foot in North, Central, and South America, Asia, Africa, Australia and Europe and have looked different types of people in the face, acknowledge our differences and still share something in common. I have not gone into war zones or areas dominated by people intent on killing strangers and I have been just fine, enjoyed the people, the culture, the history, the food, etc.
It's pretty arrogant and not very "tolerant" to look down on people of faith as if they're programmed as outdated robots with a few lines of code -{if(other_person != fellow_believer) action = kill;}- whereas you are a more sophisticated model.
By this measure of "easily enticed" and considering the amount of people who practice a religion, we would be extinct already. Religious people coexist everywhere in different manners without violence and would rather continue to do so until their respective end. For non-muslim religions, the eschatological agent is the one that will rid the world of the non-believers. The faithful take no part in that, would prefer not to. The problem with religion is that it is practiced by imperfect people, all with their own varying degrees of intellectual capabilities, empathy and "common decency" (whatever that means).
Today, there are just some that use "peace" as camouflage, but all religion can safely be assumed to be dangerous if the sufferer is deeply infected ("fundamentalist" or "fanatic").
Your use of the "fundamentalist" label makes your post intellectually lazy drivel filled with the same intolerance you pretend to be against. The word "fundamentalist" generally means a religion has a set of unalterable principles which are not subject to deviation or debate and which serve as a foundation for the practice of that faith and the conduct of adherents. By that measure, the vast majority of Christians, Budhists, Hindus, or "fundamentalist" Atheists for that matter, are not going around killing non-believers as a matter of policy.
The eschatologies of these major religions are similar, with some sort of Messianic figure resolving the conflict of mankind, but only in the Muslim eschatology are the adherents charged with being directly responsible for causing the chaotic conditions that will usher the Messiah (12th Imam) to bring the resolution of the age and man's ultimate fate.
"This world will not come to an end until one person from my progeny does not rule over the Arabs, and his name will be the same as my name." [http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/imam.html]
"Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth." -- http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml
The other religions see these conditions happen as humanity degenerates by its own nature. "The difference goes to the heart of Islam, its holy texts in which the obligation of eschatological war is intimately bound up with the Truth of Islam and its need to dominate the world. The victory of Dawa (Islam ruling the world) will precede the eschatological end-times which will finally put an end to the misery of history by consigning all non-Muslims to Hell and realizing eternal Paradise pleromatically. And the process of Dawa becoming victorious cannot be divorced from the necessity to fight all those who will resist that Dawa: hence the necessary corollary of military Jihad."
Reposted
Private insurance still lets you choose. You can change and shop around, which my company does every few years. When we get to single payer, are you going to fire the government, your sole source of health coverage when you're unsatisfied with your coverage or service? The hundreds of thousands of service denials from Medicare and the VA should wise you up, but I can understand if that never happens.
Or maybe ask the increasing number of brits who are pulling their own teeth if their single-payer system is working for them.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/15/england.dentists/index.html
Single payer doesn't eliminate the problem, and it manages to add another deficit-increasing entitlement to the mix.
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
