You must be an American if you equate liberal with socialist. In Europe, they tend to be the very opposite of each other.
Yep. The European Liberals actually stand for liberty. The American users of the name are the opposite — their first solution to any problem is to create a government agency responsible for solving it, as well as simply banning the use of anything potentially dangerous — and thus the proper name for them is Illiberal.
You're right: Liberalism in Europe
"In general, liberalism in Europe is a political movement that supports a broad tradition of individual liberties and constitutionally-limited and democratically accountable government. This usually encompasses the belief that government should act to alleviate poverty and other social problems, but not through radical changes to the structure of society."
A "liberal" in Europe wants smaller govt like conservatives do in America, while liberals in America want a bigger govt that has more control and attempts to eliminate poverty by equalizing income like a socialist would, like doubling minimum wage to the same wage most college graduates receive.
"The most advanced, the most reliable, the fastest 3D printer ever created"
He says it is "fastest", but he does NOT say it is "ten times faster" as the summary claims. He also says it is "advanced" and "reliable" but neither of those adjectives necessarily imply that it is precise.
He also didn't say if it is cost effective. It's easy to make the fastest or best or most reliable of anything, problem is making it at a price that people are willing to pay.
I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without!
Kidding, right? I have three 22" 1680x1050 monitors, only $50 each on craigslist. That's 5040x1050 compared to 1920x1200. Games in eyefinity are beautiful when the screens wrap around you and all you see from the corners of your eye is more of the video game. Looking at one flat screen is annoying now, it's like I'm missing the rest of the game. I don't know why the new consoles don't have two more video outputs for two more screens.
three 30" though.... I don't know if I would want all that, I would have to turn my head to look from one side to the other, I would be exhausted from constantly looking around LOL. 22 to 24" is about the limit with three screens on a desktop if you don't want to have to turn your head to look from one corner to the other unless you're placing the screens several feet away.
Not always. Heads are used for many things. The first 4 head units were done for better pause action not for better EP mode.
Was this right after "Basic Instinct" came out on VHS?
If you want porn, watch porn. What the point on pausing a movie to hopefully see some cunt's crotch.
Because you're 13 and internet didn't exist yet, pausing a movie was the best you got.
Not with my knees.
You're right. I'm guessing these office workers have never been waitresses or had a job requiring 8 hours of standing because if they had they would appreciate being able to sit instead of standing. Standing prolonged hours causes varicose veins and can cause knee and joint pain. Sitting just causes a fat butt. Solution is to get up and walk around every so often. Most of these office workers have regular scheduled breaks, they need to use their breaks to get up and be active.
A person can buy a Maserati, but i said person doesn't change the oil and let water and particulate go into the gas tank, the car will turn into garbage. The car wasn't garbage. The owner was a careless fool at best (and a f*tard at worst.)
clearly you have never owned a Maserati if you think they are not garbage.
At the time there were limited arms (you took about 2 minutes to reload) vs able to empty a couple clips in that same amount of time, now.
Further, rifle, cannon and naval mines were about all there were. The most literal interpretation of that 2nd amendment means I could possess nuclear weapons, bacterial weapons, chemical weapons, and were I wealthy enough, my own tanks, APCs, fighter jets, bombers, etc. In short, the 2nd amendment favors the rich because they can arm themselves to the hilt, should they wish. Not very equal, is it?
Do you think weapons were free back then? Yes, if you have more money you can buy more weapons, just like back then, I'm sure the rich could buy a dozen rifles and load them all and then not have to reload, just grab another rifle and fire. Nothing has changed, but this is not the 2nd amendment's fault anymore then it's the 1st amendment's fault that the wealthy can afford TV commercials to get their free speech message across and the poor can not.
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot. That is why we see this as a front page story bashing the person proposing the re-examination of the second amendment.
We are "bashing" because someone wants to change the rights of the people. The Constitution is a list of rights for all the people, not certain groups, they did not mean "only a small group of people should have guns, the rest of you should not", because that gives too much power to the government which is exactly what this country was fighting at the time when the Constitution was written, another government that had too much power and did not give a voice to the people.
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
