Actually, yes, they can. It sucks, but then voters are getting exactly what they deserve by electing those they elect.

Under the "Know Your Customer" banking laws, this would trigger after a couple events. Regular deposits of several thousand dollars eventually trigger a report as well.

All donated blood is antigen-typed, because it can be fatal for a recipient if it is not.

No "probably" about it, but blood donated for personal use also requires a waiver allowing its use by anyone else while it is stored.

And the very next amendment protects the right of people not to be compelled to aid in the production of evidence used to prosecute them. The government cannot compel me to divulge what is in my head.

A progressive sales tax would be something like taxing common consumer goods at 5%, but luxuries like yachts and supercars at 50%. That's all it means.

Yup. Plenty of instances where it needs to be pointed out that a victim did something really stupid to enable their victimization.
News flash: people are responsible for their actions in most cases. There are certainly cases where victims bear no reasonable responsibility for their predicament, but there are absolutely cases where they bear significant responsibility.

Fixed that for you. There is not, nor has there ever been, a Latin plural of the word "virus."

My total net household income is under 20k, supporting two people. If I had an additional 81k per year, I definitely could afford to pay 24k/year for a car.

I wish I still had mod points, because this is the beginning and end of the issue. Unfortunately, most people are not able to see these issues objectively, but instead react to the emotional shouts from the extreme with which they are more closely aligned (which is usually pretty far from their beliefs, but just a tad closer than the opposing extremist views).

They're pretty common to see running BMCs as well.

Man, the attics only get to 120F in Arizona? I would've guessed quite a bit higher, given that those near the northern border will easily reach that in the summer as well.

"Right to work" is not the same as "at will employment." They have nothing to do with each other.

His arguments should have been:
1) Government employees can shoot you with little consequence.
2) Government employees can lock you up with little consequence, and shoot you if you resist.

Penalizing violent or coercive actions is not within the scope of what constitutes a free market. "Free market" doesn't mean "anything goes" any more than "free speech" means you can slander someone or incite a panic.

It has nothing to do with "me deciding" anything. If my statement is true, it still does not, in any way, contradict the historical definition of what constitutes a free market.