Yeah, because the $4 Trillion federal budget and $37.6 Billion state budget just aren't high enough. If only we paid more taxes and increased government spending, there would be no more homelessness. How much does government need before they can solve all of our problems for us? Can you put a number on it?
Fuck big government.
I know you said that facetiously, but the market would take care of it very quickly
The very same EpiPens which sell for hundreds of dollars in the USA can be had in Europe & Canada for less than $100. In a free market, these price differences could not possibly exist. People in the USA would just drive across the border to buy them or pay shipping costs to get them from a foreign supplier. Prices would have to reach an equilibrium because nobody would pay the ridiculously inflated USA price for the same product.
Why doesn't this happen you ask? Because the U.S. government makes it ILLEGAL to import or even re-import these products, or any other prescription medications for that matter. Remove the government ban and the market would indeed take care of it. Maybe folks in Europe and Canada would have to pay a little more, but USA customers would pay a lot less.
Then there's the whole multi-million dollar FDA barrier to entry for domestic competitors.
Government is the problem.
Should 1.6% of the population of California have more say in the national government than 100% of the population of Wyoming? Should 2.4% of the population of Texas be able to negate the voice of 100% of Vermont?
"US" stands for "United States" Both the legislative branch of government and the national election system were created to provide a balance so that high population states could not impose their will on low population states via the U.S. government.
If you want California to be free of that annoying U.S. Constitution, SECEDE!
I'm very skeptical of this "police are less dangerous than armed citizens because of their training" argument. Police get stressed just like everyone else and their track record on protecting innocent bystanders is less than stellar.
Remember those idiots in California who fired over 100 rounds at two women in a blue Toyota
I'll take my chances with the armed citizens. The cops may be trained, but they strike me as being a little too trigger-happy.
"We need a simple government agency"
LOL Don't you keep up with the news? When government agencies find vulnerabilities, they don't report them, they exploit them!
You're kidding, right? Access?
Actually, the UK would refuse to extradite Assange to the USA unless there was a guarantee that he would not face the death penalty.
Assange was arrested in the UK due to Sweden's request that he be extradited to face sexual assault charges. He has repeatedly said that his concern with going to Sweden is that he might be extradited from there to the USA.
The government can choose to seek a "sealed indictment" so that the accused is completely unaware of it until they are arrested. I think Assange surmised that this was the situation and assumed he would be extradited if he traveled to Sweden or any other country with whom the U.S. has an extradition treaty.
FTS, it seems like they are now claiming he actively assisted Snowden. They probably have a sealed indictment claiming that he actively assisted Manning.
Most cell phone apps require you to agree to forfeit your privacy for the privilege of using the app? Many of the agreements I've seen clearly specify that they will access just about everything on your phone, including the camera and microphone, to gather data about you.
I don't know of any studies which concluded that "hands free" talking is as dangerous as "other cell phone use" like texting.
Studies have definitely shown that the danger of having a "hands free" phone conversation while driving is on par with the risk of driving while talking on the phone using one hand to hold it up to your ear. i.e. it's the distracted mind and not the distracted hand which creates the risk.
Thanks for offering your perspective. I'm genuinely curious as to why it's so popular.
Yes, I know that they escaped.
"Karate moves and other things are metaphorical, and should give you a clue: they are still in the Matrix."
Oh, I clearly understand that they're still in the Matrix when they're doing their karate moves. That's the part that ruins it for me. Why can't the creatures who created this artificial reality conjure up an omnipotent Agent Smith? A virtual reality version of god rather than an Nth degree black belt in a suit? If you can see those fight scenes metaphorically, I suppose it works. Maybe I'll watch it again while trying to maintain that perspective and look for clues that this was the intent. I was so turned off by it that I might have missed some things. I saw it as a cheap plot device thrown in as an excuse to add some easily choreographed action scenes which seemed totally out of context.
Not just on
It sure feels like a systematic effort at psychological conditioning. Is this simply the media trying to get back at Trump by blaming automation rather than immigration for displacing U.S. born workers? Is it just some current fad in the media which is going to pass when a majority of people get bored with it? Or perhaps it's just some distorted perception/selective attention on my part. It still feels sort of weird.
Logic is the chastity belt of the mind!