Despite what the media and press may lead you to believe the TARP program was setup to have the US government purchase assets as well as issue loans. The government chose to use a majority of the funds for GM, under TARP, by purchasing assets rather than issuing a loan.
Does SS and medicare get funded by taking taxes out of my paycheck? Yes. Then there's no difference.
By holding stock, they (the US government) may only recover whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. If, and only if, GM offered to buy back the stock in question could the price ever be remotely guaranteed to be close to what it was purchased for. Instead the US government sought to dump that stock for politically expedient reasons which manifested itself as the "loss" to the taxpayers. Had the US government issued a loan to GM this would not be an issue. Had GM and the US government signed a contract that said GM would cover the difference if the US government sold the stock below the purchase price, this would not be an issue.
I believe jets do indeed land at 10,000+ feet. There are 13 commercial airports with an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher. That's not including any military airports.
Not to mention the numerous state constitutions at the time that were worded more bluntly regarding the individual right to bear arms.
This is the more significant part. If the 2nd amendment were not to protect the individual right, why would the states with the individual right ratify the amendment?
The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and not in any way shape or form connected to militia service. Barring any significant shift that would switch up the opinion, at this point it's a matter of to what extent guns may be limited.
Columbine's armed officers were in a remote parking lot taking their lunch when Columbine occurred.
An oft overlooked fact of the Columbine shootings is that the perpetrators had planted bombs in the cafeteria. Their original intent had been to set off the bombs (killing as many as possible) and then use the guns to shoot down people as they fled. Fortunately the bombs did not detonate.
Certain trends that I have noticed over the past 10-20 years.
#1 - Greater media glorification of such events. Whether it's agenda driven (towards anti-gun legislation) or not it certainly creates an environment in which the perpertrator gains significant fame (infamy).
#2 - The Internet has given rise to a much large number of people becoming famous over very little effort.
#3 - Increasingly, the collective we has been telling children that they are special snowflakes.
It's so much easier to obtain fame now than it used to be and an event like a shooting is guaranteed to be highly publicized. I feel that we are setting children up for this by setting their expectations too high and when they inevitably fall short of it there's going to be issues.
My first thought was that these Senators disagreed with the findings that cellphone usage on airplanes was safe and thus are pushing their flawed incorrect view.
I actually miss smoking sections in restaurants for this reason, it was much better to eat there as that most parents wouldn't eat in the smoking section. And when I worked in the business back while in school, I found the smoking section folks drank more alcohol and tipped better too, but that's another topic altogether.
Here's my tips to finding good restaurants to eat at in places with a smoking ban.
#1 - Preference restaurants with bars and sit in/at the bar. This one is the big one since children are not allowed in the bar and many restaurants that feature a bar area are also sufficiently separated from the general dining area so that even if the restaurant would match a later criteria it's still a good choice.
#2 - Avoid restaurants with a children's menu or have a quantity of items priced under $10. The lack of low priced items drives away customer's with children. Since the kids will often be a picky eater the parents won't want to spend a lot of money. When you're talking a familiy of four that goes out and a bill that will probably be between $50-60 before taxes, the waste of food would drive a lot of parents mad. The kids menu and cheaper prices usually means smaller portions and much less wasted food that the parent's aren't as bothered by.
I see you subscribe to the universal solution as originally proposed by Javik.
First number is USA's count. Second number is China's count. Third number is world-wide total.
Aircraft Carriers: 10 [55.5%] / 1 [5.5%] / 18
Amphibious Assault Ship: 9 [39.1%] / 0 [0%] / 23
Landing Ship: 21 [43.8%] / 26 [54.2%] / 48
Cruiser: 22 [78.6%] / 0 [0%] / 28
Destroyer: 62 [36.3%] / 24 [14%] / 171
Frigate: 24 [6.1%] / 45 [10.9%] / 411
Corvette: 2 [0.7%] / 8 [2.7%] / 301
Patrol Boat: 209 [17.6%] / 236 [19.8%] / 1,190
Anti-Mine Ship: 14 [3.2%] / 107 [24.2%] / 443
Missile Sub: 14 [28.6%] / 5 [10.2%] / 49
Attack Sub: 57 [14.3%] / 55 [13.8%] / 398
All Ships: 445 [14.5%] / 507 [16.5%] / 3,074
Tonnage: 3,415,893 / 659,578
The difference between a protest and a DDoS is that the protest which may or may not block access is capable of clearly demonstrating its views and what it's opposing. A DDoS conveys no such additional message. The parallel comparison between a DDoS attack and something similar in the meatspace would be to erect a bland and featureless wall around a business and then have one person in city in another country standing on the corner of an intersection yelling about whatever problem the business is apparently engaging in.
That is the person who represents those who suffered financial damage. Who the hell are you to call otherwise?
Justice is blind. It doesn't matter what the harmed think. It's a criminal prosecution.