Actually, he stated he does get vaccinated. The point wasn't about doing it voluntarily based on choice, but having that choice removed.

I would certainly advise people to get chicken pox rather than be vaccinated. Getting a primary chicken pox infection as an adult is far more serious than getting it as a child, and you need to get lifelong boosters of the vaccine in order to avoid any risk of getting chicken pox later in life.

Unfortunately, it's almost certain they'll declare war on secessionist. At least the first one or two, anyway, until they are so broke they can't pay the military and generals start selling black market weapons on the side.

And how do they do that squishing? By being evil.

Bin Laden's demand was that the US remove all troops from certain Middle Eastern countries, not that the US convert to Islam.

I guarantee you FaceBook uses more complex logic than required for the healthcare site.

Except it is. The red tape prevents many of the more competent contractors to not even bother.

Yes, the direct result is not caused by red tape, but indirectly the red tape certainly had an enormous affect on the pool of available talent.

That's not how government works. Volunteer labor? Bah, unless you're being volun-told (which certain people love to do), it's whoever hires the most lobbyists, has the most connections, or knows the best ways to game the system.

A fair amount of people living paycheck to paycheck do so because of poor decisions.

Just to be clear, I don't say this as someone coming from a comfortable middle-class background. I say this as someone who lives on roughly $1000/month and supports someone else on that as well. I live in a decent-sized city, eat well, and don't really want for much. I could live like a king on minimum wage.

And no, having children is not an acceptable excuse. Children are a choice, and if you value having children over having discretionary spending, you've made that choice and need to live with it. I understand there are lots of catastrophic occurrences, but those are not in any way the norm for why people live in poverty. Far more likely is the myopic notion that "I should be able to have all this stuff because other people do!"

Self-responsibility is scary though, so someone in the government should fix things so I can spend like a moron and not have to worry about things like budgets. After all, the government doesn't care about things like budgets, so why should I?

In such an instance there would be nobody to buy their products, hence they would not make a pile of profits.

Instead, there will develop an equilibrium which allows a business owner to sell products because there are enough people making enough money to afford them.

NYC does have their own intelligence agency, complete with foreign operatives.

Most libertarians I know would ignore this moron because he's obviously not worth the time to entertain past perhaps a single comment telling him he's a moron. There's nothing to discuss with someone who has an almost religious faith in his own self-importance.

It's like any myopic organization. The ACLU supports the 1st but not the 2nd.

He's already at strike three; He's out of the game.

It won't help if they're all corrupt, but even having a few who are not corrupt allows the 5th Amendment to be used to mitigate the circumstances under which an individual may be falsely prosecuted and convicted.

So no, not even close to the same boat, but then you've obviously never had any real experience inside a courtroom, let alone dealt with a separate Appellate court to which a lesser, more corrupt judge may end up having their ass handed to them.

You cannot come up with a specific scenario which ends up differing based on the 5th Amendment, because the 5th Amendment is just words. The different outcomes depend on external factors related to the function of the legal system. Your test is fundamentally flawed because it rests on a completely false presumption that the 5th Amendment can or cannot directly change the outcome of certain situations. The 5th Amendment may only indirectly affect the outcome; the real determination is if someone in a position to change something throws out or allows evidence, either in the primary case or on appeal, based on whether it violated the 5th or not. Not only that, but the 5th will invariably change the behavior of borderline corrupt cops or prosecutors. Without it, they may or may not do things differently. No example can have concrete results, but all you need to do is look at history to know that the 5th Amendment changed the behavior of certain individuals in the justice system so that things did not proceed in the same manner as the King's courts. You either didn't read history, or you did and have jack all common sense. Neither of those cause anyone with actual sense (or little sense but a decent understanding of history) to look favorably on your "challenge."