They know he is a killer -- so why do they need his phone?
Really? You're that lacking in imagination, or that unfamiliar with the long history of Islamist murderers being in touch with each other and specific consulting figureheads, financiers, teachers, parts suppliers, etc?
"Only democrats spend tons of money" says area man with no grip on reality.
No, his point was that on things like this, Democrats only spend money (as opposed to actually getting things done right). The money gets spent, but the supposed purpose for which money is being taxed or borrowed and then spread around on the chartering and running of panels, focus groups, advisory boards, and programs as being mentioned in the OP
Try disobeying an Executive Order. Then you'll realize that they are considered "law".
Unless they are challenged in court and found to be unconstitutionally out of bounds for the president to have issued in the first place. Obama has lost in court multiple times on that front so far.
For those that say "but they will not see in the dark or with rain" there is a simple solution: adapt to the speed you can travel, so slow down. That is the whole purpose.
Similar to what I said earlier in the discussion, you could also fill the road with potholes to make people slow down. You are making the road less safe to scare people, while also completely disregarding their need to get somewhere in a timely manner.
No, it's not. You could also fill the street with potholes. That would slow people down (and damage their cars) with no benefit. Not having the lines to guide people, keeping them in safe lanes, could cause them to slow down to a speed that wasn't needed before you did it.
Yes, accidents are more severe at high speed. But we still have high speed expressways, right? You're reminding me of that Bloom County cartoon from the 1980s, where Milo accused Opus of wanting 30,000 people to die on the highways because he didn't support a 15 MPH speed limit over 55.
Well, just because you can make ads that fill up the entire page and can't be skipped, move around the screen, play videos and sound, or redirect the browser to another page, doesn't mean you should. That's abuse.
It's annoying how much space is dedicated to advertising in a print magazine, but at least it doesn't do those things. If it did, print would be dying even faster than it is.
How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?
Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.
What are you, 12? Yeah, I thought so.
We've eliminated predators
I'm sure that groups like Boko Haram, ISIS and the rest would be surprised to hear they've been eliminated. They do a lot of preying while they're praying.
If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.
Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.
Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.
You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.
My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.
You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.