Incorrect my good man - you certainly CAN choose not to pay taxes. While you may not like the eventual outcome, you DO have that choice. You can still choose not to get health insurance. You may not like the alternatives very much in the end, but you still have that choice.

And there is now a floor at least for coverage. There are NO preexisting conditions anymore. There are NO charges for routine yearly preventative care physicals. There is a minimum level of coverage now - and as you can see by the thousands of policies terminated, a lot of companies were not meeting that standard (are you really covered if the policy is 'affordable' but doesn't really cover you?).

It may not be perfect, but I think its at least a small step in the right direction.

"I think that word means what you don't think it means"

From the best estimate I've seen, about 1/10th of a Library of Congress

In your third point you talked about the government discouraging Service - with the example of the recruiter. This is definitely intentional, and really necessary. Service should be given for its own sake, not as a price to pay to get something else (like political office for example), or there is no sacrifice in it. People needed to Serve because they wanted to - needed to give something back for their own moral stance. Only that mindset proved you deserved to vote. That's what I think the rationale is.

Interesting observation - I was disillusioned by Mr McCain as well. But I won't go into why. The idea may still be sound - as in using McCain as an example may not invalidate it - for the simple reason that when McCain was Serving, service was not voluntary and discouraged.

We don't have that state today either, even though we have all volunteer services - there are things like the GI Bill, ROTC, etc. that give solid incentives to Serve. I think only if there were none at all besides the voting franchise itself would the idea possibly be workable.

12 miles off-shore a tsunami is barely a ripple on the waters surface. It only becomes a wave when it hits the shore.

| A Saudi woman goes to the USA, is raped there. Goes
| back to Saudi Arabia and is thrown in jail for having been
| raped (had sex outside marriage).

      That's ridiculous. She'd be stoned! or is it set on fire? I can never remember.

Yes, of course he read Das Kapital for his 9th grade term paper. In the original Klingon, of course.

And why is that necessarily a bad thing? The way I look at it if tapping geothermal causes quakes, then quakes were going to happen anyway - eventually. And the longer between quakes, the worse they are. That seems obvious - more time for energy to build up, release more energy at once, worse quake.

I rather trade an earthquake that's a 2 or 3 on the scale every year than wait for the 100 year one that hits with an 11.5!

Yep - I advocate a CLEAN SWEEP - vote out every single incumbent of both parties. Every one. If someone is running unopposed - simply do NOT vote for them. Do not check that box on your ballot - let them get reelected with 300 votes out of 300,000 voters. It would at least send them a message - and send a message that anyone, anyone at all, can get in as long as they are not the same congressmen we currently have.

As long as I'm not in New York I can get the 64-ounce size. The I don't need no stinkin' refills.

No, you were absolutely crystal clear - and that is NOT what you were saying (that it's not the 5th that 'prevents' the cops from beating you up or lying about your confession). And you certainly did not say it's irrelevant. In fact, according to you, it's pivotal. What you said was exactly this:

  "Which brings it back to my original article: To show the benefits of the Fifth Amendment, you need to come up with a specific, precisely defined scenario where the outcome is different depending on whether we have the Fifth Amendment or not. The scenarios that people have been proposing, all fail that test, for the reasons described above"

That every scenario people have answered you with, you dismiss out of hand, for the reasons you posted. Period. Crystal clear, and makes this whole farce moot.

You have finally answered what everyone has been trying to figure out - why you reject every answer to your question. It is contained below. There IS no precisely defined scenario to give to you that meets your criteria. Some of which you only (that I can see) state below.

Given that you are assuming that the police will ignore the law - any law - and that the court will let them get away with it and convict innocents. It is right there in the quoted section below. And given that the 5th Amendment is a law (supreme law of the land notwithstanding as the police WILL ignore it by your own words below), then NO, there is no scenario where it will make a difference. If the police ignore all laws, and the 5th is just a law, then it does not matter if it exists or not - it makes no difference.

And that gets none of us anywhere. You've simply made it a stupid question that has, by your definition, no possible answer. Congrats.

"All I'm saying is:

Suppose you're innocent the police ask you if you're guilty. With the Fifth Amendment, you can refuse to answer. Without the Fifth Amendment, you would just say "No."

At that point, if the police don't like the answer that you're giving, and if they're corrupt enough, they could just beat you until you confess -- and since that's happening outside the boundaries of the law anyway, the Fifth Amendment doesn't help you. The police will just say that you waived your Fifth Amendment rights and confessed.

For that matter, since the police aren't allowed to beat you, they'll have to lie in court about how the confession was obtained. And if they're willing to lie in court anyway, they can just lie and say that you confessed, even if you didn't. Again, since they're acting outside the law, the Fifth Amendment doesn't help you.

Which brings it back to my original article: To show the benefits of the Fifth Amendment, you need to come up with a specific, precisely defined scenario where the outcome is different depending on whether we have the Fifth Amendment or not. The scenarios that people have been proposing, all fail that test, for the reasons described above."

I look at it this way: For a shot at a big jackpot I can toss out the $1 or $2 price of a ticket (or go crazy and buy 2 tickets!), and it's effectively a cost of zero. I make enough that buying those tickets is effectively zero % of my income - big jackpots don't come around all the time. For a little fun, and a crazy 'what if?', why not?

Also you mentioned the 400mil payout vs the $2 ticket. But there are a lot of other significant prizes to win, even down to the $4 minimum prizes. Taking those into account would make it more than $2.29, though I won't do the math to figure out how much more.

Sorting I can't help with, but most of the time there is either a tiny (back) button on the upper or lower edge somewhere (don't recall) OR if you jump back to the TOC, the last entry visible is the one you came from. Hope this helps. YMMV, etc.