OMFG, and they actually ask for these things. It is no wonder people are confused about the US tax code, yet explains why it's existence is under legal scrutiny.
what is wrong with you? are you that ignorant of the actual laws that determine the election of the US presidency? if you don't like the electoral vote process (which i doubt you know), then change it.
Common sense is that I want to protect my family from being raped or killed. Without the right to bear arms, my only option is to suffer the consequences.
"Obviously. In a stable society they wouldn't need to be. An efficient police force is a deterrent in itself - though of course it must be adequately funded and must have adequate controls."
1) But they sure are always there to monitor your parking habits 2) Efficiency...only at limiting activity of citizens that do obey the laws and funding to provide those laws 3)Funding...only administration or AFTER the crime.
That wasn't the point, was it? Try to show some intelligence when you give such a poor example of "freedom to kill" against the age-old argument to "freedom to protect".
Slashdot Mirror
OMFG, and they actually ask for these things. It is no wonder people are confused about the US tax code, yet explains why it's existence is under legal scrutiny.
"The government is us."
You put three people in a room and you come up with four distinct opinions. Be very afraid of that fourth opinion.
what is wrong with you? are you that ignorant of the actual laws that determine the election of the US presidency? if you don't like the electoral vote process (which i doubt you know), then change it.
"Everytime I see"..."I flip em off and run them off the road."
That's what was acceptable to those that wore their "jew badges" with pride.
"get used to the idea that half of this country is really into bringing back the good ole days of Hitler and Gerbils"
which half is it?
"PS. Your own islamophobia is showing..."
'kill the infidels!' -- i have as much reason to fear (phobia) this group as any other anti-seministic group.
Common sense is that I want to protect my family from being raped or killed. Without the right to bear arms, my only option is to suffer the consequences.
"I don't want to wait for the police to come in and save me --- that is taking the law into your own hands."
Yes, much better to be dead. Taking the law into your own hands is not always wrong.
"Obviously. In a stable society they wouldn't need to be. An efficient police force is a deterrent in itself - though of course it must be adequately funded and must have adequate controls."
1) But they sure are always there to monitor your parking habits 2) Efficiency...only at limiting activity of citizens that do obey the laws and funding to provide those laws 3)Funding...only administration or AFTER the crime.
So much for stability...
That wasn't the point, was it? Try to show some intelligence when you give such a poor example of "freedom to kill" against the age-old argument to "freedom to protect".
One thing you can count on something with the IBM logo...it does what it says and it works.
As was mentioned in the article, Redhat retains some of these copyrights.
You realize that "congress" actually does the spending, right? (even the war, yes...look it up at who approves such spending).