Oh please. The odds of such a catastrophic failure as a wellhead blowing out during drilling are practically nil.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Typically in the latter system you speak of, you would call them something like "Great Leader," or "President for Life."
Probably AL4A and Wikipedia
If government didn't have the power to affect the private sector, your argument would be meaningless because all the money in the world wouldn't change anything for them. The problem with socialistic arguments against reduced government is that they presume the same conditions that allowed our government to spiral out of control in the first place.
Eliminate all the laws that affect the private sector, good and bad, force the Federal Government to stop using the Interstate Commerce Clause to blow money on regulation, and kick the lobbyists out of the capital and you have a workable small government. Take it a step further and require the government to be supported entirely through donations and then they can't spend money on frivolities without our permission.
Howabout you go enforce your idea of what's right on the other side of town and we'll go enforce our idea of what's right on our side of town.
Wait, are you arguing that we should pass laws against stupidity? As if that ever stopped anyone.
Judging by your "use" of "quotations" to "denote" a "chemical," I can only "assume" that you don't "believe" that "chemicals" "exist."
The fiberglass in Chew will kill you more readily than the actual tobacco. One of the first things you learn from other chewers is not to swallow anything while its in your mouth. It will tear up your stomach.
I daresay that it wasn't deregulation that got us into this mess, but rather the mandate that housing is a right. Our government let us down when they decided that it didn't need to make financial sense for a person to own a home, only that they needed to want it badly enough and they could get a loan.
The shocker is that we're doing the same thing to healthcare and my children will be paying for it.
I have a lower UID than you and I don't know what a root DNS server does. I do probably know way more physics, mathematics, and philosophy than you so can it. Especially if you're not going to explain.
That's the same attitude that perpetuates the modern socialist state, that we hold someone's life to be inherently sacred, but not the things that allow them that life. That we do not hold a person's food, shelter, or clothing sacred but that we hold his every breath sacred as if breathing were not made possible by any of those things.
It is a travesty that you believe anyone should be allowed to take anything of mine as long as they don't perpetrate physical violence upon me.
So are you saying that because he didn't make a good decision he doesn't ever get to make decisions at all?
The founding fathers left a massive loophole in the constitution by declaring you have a right to life. You don't have a right to life, you have a right to live your own life.
Could you source some data for your comment? Otherwise it's at least as valid as your opponent's unsourced comment, and it seems less plausible under the example of an illegal alien obtaining employment through identity theft, and their subsequent ability to force another person to take on their personal tax liability.
So I'm confused. If you're saying you would rather it be at the expense of your life, then are you saying it would be okay for an illegal alien to enter the country but only on the condition that they shoot you first?
Or are you saying that you would rather we all die for the sake of everyone else in the world who is also dead at the hands of your philosophy?