Because the Republican "cut taxes while spending trillions invading other countries" works out so well.

--
BMO

Dear fan,

I am sure that you can find many other entertainment content options that also cost significantly more than $5, especially among those available on the first day of theatrical release. Many of them also require you to get off your ass and go somewhere, rather than letting you enjoy your entertainment experience in bed, at home, on your tablet.

So, yeah. $5. It costs that much because we think it's worth that much, and because we think that enough people will agree with that assessment to make this business financially viable. In a very real and tangible way "what people will pay" is very much "what something is worth", at least for dollars-and-cents pricing decisions.

Sincerely,

Joss Whedon

P.S.: I'm funnier than Louis CK, so there's that, too.

You know that by far the largest group of unemployed people living on a government income are retired old folks collecting Social Security, right?

But I'm guessing that "grandma" isn't the demographic group I'm supposed to think of when you blow your ill-informed dog whistle.

The same is true for speeding. But even if you want to narrow the scope to "things I can do in my own home, where I won't get caught except if something goes terribly wrong, or by happenstance" there is still a pretty big field.

Suppose I live in a high-rise apartment tower. It would be trivially easy for me to buy a couple of dozen propane cylinders from local retailers, and slip them into my hypothetical apartment. (Put each one in a suitcase or cardboard box to carry it upstairs, and spread the purchases out over a few different stores, across several weeks of summer barbecue season. Pay cash.) No one knows my apartment is now a giant bomb. Totally illegal under an assortment of fire codes and municipal bylaws. Probably runs into state and/or federal rules about the transportation and storage of dangerous goods. To be honest, I can't be bothered to look up all the different ways in which it is illegal.

Anyone could do it. No one who does it would get caught (unless they talk about it). Should it therefore be legal to store a quarter ton of compressed, flammable gas inside a residential apartment building?

I have to admit that I am always surprised by people who confuse and conflate the notion that something is possible with the notion that laws against that possible-to-do thing are thereby rendered unenforceable.

It is extraordinarily easy to acquire an automobile with a top speed exceeding 75 miles per hour. They can be found readily on our city streets, in the garages of our homes, all across America. Millions of such vehicles exchange hands, legally, every year. Shockingly, that doesn't actually render laws against speeding unenforceable--even though every driver has access to technology with which they can speed, available at the twitch of a foot.

Well, no. That figure only applies if a power outage (affecting both the city power and the building's emergency power, so as to disable the building's tuned mass damper) occurs simultaneously with every occurrence of high winds. Or if the building's owners decide to just turn off the tuned mass damper for giggles, and leave it turned off for a decade and a half.

Far more interesting - and potentially scary - was the fact that even with the mass damper, the building would expect to see winds sufficient to cause toppling approximately once every 55 years. As the building is now approaching its fortieth birthday, there's a better than even chance that it would have fallen by now.

yes

nevada has been trying to get more control of its federal lands for years.
this of course will be a big setback to those wishes.

it has nothing to do with sending water to another state.
there's not enough there to send, and no means to do so.

no bundy has not been there since before it was a state.
Bundy's claim dates to the 1880s.
The state because a state during hte Civil War, the 1860s.
the federal government has own the land in question since the 1840s, when it was a territory obtained from mexico.
the federal government is the one that's owned the land since before it was a state.

bundy himself used this land since long before the 90s. and he was more than happy to pay the fees back then. there was a condition imposed that he reduce the size of the herd he ran ON THAT PEICE OF LAND, but he was free to use other lands or his own for the displaced cattle.

it had nothing to do with water, its because the desert tortiose is endangered. whether cattle are harmful to it, i dont know, im not a biologist, but ultiamtely it doesnt matter, because the law is the law. if you dont like it, change it, petition it, etc. but you dont get to just ignore it, keep using land that is not and never has been yours, for free, and threaten violence over it.

and, no, nevada is not that liberal, i assure you. like most states, its purple, and in recent years has been leaning more and more red.

Basically nothing you said is true.
Dont comment on things you arent qualified to.

what overreach?
its federal land.
always has been.

Forcing unfavorable contract terms?
He's free to use his own land.
Or pay the (extremely reasonable) fees that every other rancher pays to use public lands.

It's pure property rights: the fed has em, Bundy does not. Bundy chose to ignore that, and has been running his cattle, at taxpayer expense (which is why the fees exist, to reduce the cost to the public) on public land.

it doesnt get any simpler.

no seriously? tell me. how stupid are you?
what facts are you going to ignore this time?
what lies will you use, pulled from your peanut brain to explain away things you clearly arent qualified to comment on?

Because he was part of the militia you idiot.
he come from Boise, Idaho, a long damn drive, specifically to join in the protest.
and those blogs HAVE relevance. they back up the "mainstream media" you lied about not properly using hte picture and corroborate their statements.

AND THAT PICTURE, AND ALL THE VIDEOS, AREN'T ON BUNDY'S LAND, so anything he may have said about carrying on his property is compeltely irrelevent. and he wasnt even the only one with a weapon sighted in.

you dont get to pick and choose your facts.
and you repeat the same tired myth about Al Sharpton.
And you repeat the lie that "someone" wants that land....ya someone does...his name is Bundy! and he's willing to ignore multiple court orders, property laws, and federal laws to get it. AND HE'S THE ONE WITH AN ARMY!!, asked for or not.

and the irs doesnt have a most wanted list ot my knowledge. but neither hte FBI nor the IRS are relevant to this.
It's BLM land. It's their responsibility to oversee it and enforce the policies. and they never had an army!

i say again: you are an extremely misinformed idiot, who cares not for facts or reality
seriously, just how fucking stupid are you?

to be clear, the picture specifically identifies one Eric Parker as the man holding the rifle sighted in.
The attribution of the picture is to Jim Urquhart at Reuters.

Just one of many that prove you wrong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And there are other photos of the same gentleman, on wingnut "freedom" blogs all clearly labeling him as a member of the militia, proudly proclaiming the he "was providing cover for the patriots".

I say again: You are an idiot.

you're an idiot.
go away.

interesting thing about facts is they dont require your belief.
no statement i made is untrue.
your lack of belief is irrelevant.

as i said, its very simple.

It's only if you listen to Faux news, particularly Mr Hannity who especially has been egging this on, is it possible for you have ANY questions as to the simplicity of the case, or Bundy's complete and total lack of veracity.