They also don't have a president creating an antagonistic racial divide by sticking his nose in an ordinary self-defense case.

Wrong. It's illegal to manufacture them for sale without serial numbers. Likewise, there are lots of circumstances where transfers can legally occur without concern for the serial number at all. (Face to face, within the state, for example.)

And, one can put a serial number on a gun one builds from say, a shovel.

In any case, building with intention for personal use, then giving away or selling is perfectly legal, unless you are in one of the retard states.

Only if you insist they wouldn't deviate from their known path we see today. Creating an efficient hybred model while working the charging and range issues out might have been a possability.

Actually, quite a few gm employees and subsidiaries lost their pensions with the bailout.

And i have to wonder what the codt of thr bailout's total loss is compared to paying unemployment benefits. I saw estimates years ago but they used projected losses.

In more ways than we realize. The bailout of gm actually followed what Romney said, forced bankruptcy then a cash infusion apon restructuring. The bankruptcy negated a lot of pension liability but part of the cash infusion was paid by Canada's pension funds too. If we are taking a loss, i am almost certain they are too.

This also neglects all the pension funds that was looted when all of GM's stock and debt where invalidated as part of the bankruptcy. Detroit is even worse as municiple bonds has always been considered a safe bet as the governing authority can raise taxes to satisfy the debt but with its bankruptcy, it looks like it will be pennies on the dollar if anything is paid out. But detroit is another beast altogether.

Define "grandma"

You are asking the wrong question. When you know what "grandma" is, then the question of "when is it not 'grandma' ?" becomes quite obvious. You'll never get to the answer if you keep asking the wrong questions.

If you are a philosopher, you are a poor one.

You realise that it is unscientific to prove or disprove a god right? You simply cannot have a scientific concensus on the matter outside of a god isn't needed to explain the world. If it is more then that, it simply isn't scientific because you cannot test supernatural beings or events.

I didn't think the point was that obfuscated. Lets see how much i can dumb it down for you. I have no belief in the boogie monster. I use the notion of one to control the behavior of small children in an attemp to keep them safe at time they cannot be directly supervised.

But i find it strange that you fail in the examples you point to. For instance, smoking and cancer. Less than 10% of life long smokers will get cancer from smoking. Less than 30% of all cancer deaths are from smoking. One time won't get pregnan if it is the right time. Commonly called the rythm method, timing sexual encounters against the menstral cycle is one of the oldest and effectiver forms of birth control.

  As for god making sure your business works, thats one of the dumbest thing i ever heard. Most all religions teach a principle that god helps those that help themselves. In other words, god will not make a business work, you have to do that. So it seems your rant is all about your ignorance.

Perhaps you should stay in school until your cognitive abilities fuully develope and you can work on you comprehension a bit.

Nowhere did i say there was a god or any gods, just that the blind faith in the lack of one was noteworthy. I do find it amusing that you had to interject your evangelistic atheism and rant about something never disclosed. Does it bother you that much that there could be a God? I mean because you have absolutely no proof there isn't one.

It proves nothing. Clean Water is purchased from the utilities- usually at the costs to operate them at the local levels of government, the military is paid by taxes the federal government assigns to fund it.

You are right that we are screwed if your education didn't impart that knowlege to you

I do not assert there is no boogie monster. In fact, i often assert there might be one in order to make my children to scared to wonder around unsupervised at night. But it is a reality that things go bump in the night and it isn't always safe for small children to go wandering around in the dark. So while i have no proof of the non existance or not, the only faith i put into it is that my kids will tend to stay close and safe when we sleep and they wake up gor whatever reason.

I don't think he asked for evidence of non-existance but that humans created gods to explain what they cannot control.

However, it is noteworthy about how much blind faith you seem to have in asserting there is no god

Only liberal fools think the government is capable of being economical and efficient. Most others understand it it wastefull and irrational most of the time.

I really don't think military spending is comparable to the economics of water supplies unless you think diverting miltary spending to water resources has some sort of merrit. I do not. You can argue the merits of either all day long but when one depends on destroying the other, the argument is lost.

Lol.. that is a bit humorous but likely true to some degree. Even if it isn't something that killed off the dinos, there could be life in it that has evolved completely in isolation to the rest of the world and that could create issues on a similar scale if it isn't purified safely.

But hey, at least we have a weapon in reserve should the dinos become a problem again.