"For all those who want to remove the guns: You can't fight tanks and semi- auto snipers, night vision, and laser guided missiles with sit down protests, dirty looks and really aggressive frowning."
Definition doesn't apply here. There is no real difference either one reaches this same logical conclusion. The whole thing is a puppet show, diverting your attention as your freedom and ability to amass wealth slowly dissolve.
By definition??? Liberal and Conservative are brands. The name plate can say "rose garden" but if it smells like shit, and is gooey like shit, I am pretty sure that is just re-labelled shit. Liberal as in left wing is not "breaking free". If you think national health care will never mean ONE choice, and a "company" that is run based on your worth as a cog in the new Socialist machine, you are just dreaming. Everything comes down to power and money. Big government, or big business. Choose your poison. Either will kill you.
A "liberal" government will be fascist in its implementation here. So will a "conservative" one. Only by going back to our roots, where the rights and freedoms, and power were more focus on the individual, and trickled down to the community, state, and lastly federal governments, can we avoid the end of this road we are on. The second amendment isn't about pistols, and hunting rifles, for example. It is whatever weapons that will strike FEAR in the hearts of any government that wants to erode or deprive your constitutionally-endowed rights and freedoms.
For all those who want to remove the guns: You can't fight tanks and semi- auto snipers with night vision, and laser guided missiles with sit down protests, dirty looks and really aggressive frowning.
Keeping the freedom to say "Fcuk OMABA in his ass with a LAW rocket" may mean having to kill or die at some point.
The shit you see on the news is a diversion. The hand that moves the wires guides a fine puppet show of Liberals versus Conservatives. The other shows are terrorism and "they should make a law for that", to help guide you down the path of ratting out anyone that isn't flagrantly patriotic and supportive of all legal issues, and to help you feel comfortable knowing that the NANNY is making laws to protect you from yourself, and from any free thought.
You wouldn't want to lose your job and your kids by being a "single issue terrorist" and speaking out against the establishment, would you?
TL;DR: Definition doesn't apply here. There is no real difference one either reaches the logical conclusion. The whole thing is a puppet show, diverting your attention as your freedom and ability to amass wealth slowly dissolve.
I was going to rip you for going on about "paying their fair share", to summarize, for the wealthy.
Then you tied in what I believe to be the single most important, glaring, flaw in our entire system: money from money, and less tax on this "work free" money.
Capital gains should be 30%. Period. I see no reason to allow vapor money to be worth less in tax revenue per dollar than work money.
Tax overseas money at HIGHER rates. Remove shelters. Flatten the code. 12% for EVERYONE of income, 30% for capital gains, with exceptions of homes used as primary living for over 2 years. Hell, maybe even exclude real estate, and use a separate rate.
The overly complex system we have right now only works for the wealthy. Moving from a retarded system to a possibly retarded system can only be more of the same or better.
You completely missed his/her point. You also fell right in line with all the other sheep. Free thinkers don't really want to be pandered to. Apparently you object to politicians being honest, and want to be pandered to.
I look at our current POTUS, and know that he is an over-priviliged ass that tells the masses how much of a free ride they will get, and how many "rights" they have just for being born. Sorry, Barry, you aren't a founder of the country, and unlike the person I am responding to, I don't want to hear about how you'll spray Febreeze on our shit-burger that gets fed to the working poor to lower middle class in here.
That is a statistic taken out of context, and used to promote an assertion that assumes a context. the 4 per day could very likely be 4people that are either a) law enforcement, b) military, or c) legal concealed carry holders that simply forgot.
A firearm has several things that make it useless for terrorists to try to carry on. Gun powder is readily detected by the dogs. Metal detectors pick up most fire arms as too much metal. Finally, even without x-ray/touchless systems, the size of anything but a (still admittedly useful) low caliber single- shot pistol precludes easy hiding.
The best answer is to allow vigilant military and law enforcement personnel on board the plane, with orders to disregard the value of any one life, to save the many.
You can't travel where you want. There are plenty of places that are government operated that cannot be gotten to unless you are government personnel, usually of a specific minimum level. You cannot work where you want, once the government has completely removed the private sector from every major field. This isn't being done through legisation-directly- as much as indirectly through regulation, and by increasing government jobs' footprint in industries. National healthcare. National energy. Involvement in auto industry. Union promotion and government affiliations.... More anecdotal and tending than real to be sure, at the moment.
Worship as you see fit? Hmmm..... I think here is the big loser. The Judeo-Christian religions are being discriminated in the U.S. at about the level that accusers -say- Muslims are seeing. When the government doesn't allow kids in school to express their Judeo-Christian or other beliefs, yet abide by any Muslim garb or expression, we have a problem. Our government was founded by Christians. Traditions that include phrases like "In GOD we trust" should not be suppressed any more than Iran's Islamic-based government phrases should.
It's time that we stop feeling embarrassed about our country and it's history. It's time to assert our free speech in FAVOR of traditions. Being white should never mean being an apologist, Nor black mean that you should feel angry or held back.
Speak and write.... are you even aware that there are laws that can make you a terrorist for simply asserting your view of a public school's choice of curriculum? Try asking them why they make a big deal about Martin Luther King Jr, and Black history month, without anything similar for the Irish struggle. Tell them that -your- kids will not be partaking in those activities and see what happens. Good luck being an unemployed single issue terrorist that lost his kids.
The federal government has never been constitutionally tasked with lending money for anything to any private entity. Both of you lose. You've been trumped by the fact that the money should have never existed.
Wait, you ACTUALLY said that garbage. Look, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but Obama is rich. His proposed "buffett law" would only tax the working wealthy. Capital gains and taxes on assets are what affects the truly wealthy. Of course Buffett wants to be taxed on his INCOME. Just don't touch his dividends or gains from the market, or his ridiculous personal wealth. Yes, he already paid taxes on his wealth. Yep, at lower rates due to capital gains or other maneuverings.
Feigned caring is what I see. Feigned so as to keep people from seeking the truth. I don't trust either party. I especially don't trust a part that wants to grow government, and let unions exert ridiculous levels of control. Big government and big unions are both bad, and were never meant to be. We needed unions, but we no longer need what they've become. We don't need FEDERAL programs. Keep Health Education, and Welfare at state levels.
We are individuals with a set of rights, in a united republic of individual states, with a federal government for dealing with international, trade, interstate roads, national defense, and a handful of other purposes. We are too far from what was intended, in government growth, at all levels.
I agree that we need to use oil in the near- term, and quit throwing money at ridiculously expensive alternatives that don't have reliability. Nuclear is reliable, and newer plants will have safety measures that surpass the decades old standards of plants that have had issues. Modern combustion vehicles can be powered by on- demand generated HYDROGEN. No batteries. No BS with low power, high cost. You aren't storing miniature Hindenburg levels, you don't even have to store at all. Emissions... aren't.
While I strongly support ditching alternative garbage near-term, which supports the oil industry, I am quite certain that the oil industry is the leading reason why the hydrogen powered combustion never got off the ground much.
Please note that BMW has done this. I know of a real world converted vehicle that gets better power than gas.
I also know that, just like the 110+ octane fuel made from roadside "nuisance" grass in Indiana will never be mass produced.
We need to think like a country gone corporate. We need to promise big oil our love, and then ditch them with the reminder that they tried to usurp our authority as their boss (the consumer).
All my moderately informed opinion. Converting to hydrogen now would force a LOT of lost jobs, as an aside. We need to be back on top before doing this.
The whole thing regarding your description seems rather disingenuous. I am sure that you must realize that the primary tenant of the Tea Party is that the Federal Government is too large, and by shrinking it your taxes will be reduced. Well huzzah another large part of that shrinkage will include elimination of much regulation of large corporations.
I'm good with that. Compared to expanding government. I will take ultimate freedom over being locked into having the government own everything, run business, tell me when i'm too sick to bother treating, etc. Yes, insurance companies TRY to do it too, but you can sue, and you can even use the government for that.
Removing garbage like welfare for life, bullshit bailouts and free money for failing, well that would be a good government shrink. The EPA? too much power. Unions..... WAY too much. We even lock up drug dealers for longer than rapists, because the government propagates the lies about drugs ruining the world.
Let me ask this:
How do we compete with China, if our work environments are wide open for safety, pollution, discrimination, and numerous other lawsuits frivolously filed, and subject to union threats of shutdown if assembly line workers don't make the same as well educated IT workers?
How can we continue to give away billions for aid to other countries, while we spiral out of control into debt?
Why are we giving away money to support research into pointless endeavors like electric cars? Solar? While we are not balancing the budget? Extending unemployment so far out that between that and welfare people can live most of their life in government CONDO housing, and still have a big screen TV.
Why is it that minorities MUST make up about 46% of any federally backed loans, regardless of ability to pay, if a bank wants to qualify for federal backing?
Do we really need a government to be so large that it perpetuates funding for bad ideas like treating races of people as "different"?
Do we need government to prevent businesses from failing, yet keep unions in force, therefore keeping labor costs ridiculously out of scale?
This same big government is not raising capital gains. Obama had 2 full years to do anything he felt was important. He crammed his garbage money pit health care through on a "budget" vote, instead of increasing cap gains, as a priority.
The TEA party isn't a 100% answer. It is much farther down the road than the two parties that run things as one mind.
What if I don't want steam running on my machine. I am sure you think it's fine. I don't . I run my machines lean, and I refuse to install Steam due to it's insistence on being a launching platform for when I play.
I grew up with: Buy game. Install game. Play game. End game. No game services or processes running. Play next game. repeat.
This is MY PC and I want absolute control over every fucking bit of software running, and if it's done running, it's processes should fuck off and die. Until resurrected by me.
Interesting...... So... if the software companies are enjoying a >300 billion dollar business, with 85% piracy, I guess that they actually deserve more like 2 or so TRILLION per year, right?
Could we stop with making up numbers for copyright infringement that are supposed to represent losses, when there is no way that the shovelware being pushed out could ever actually get that much purchased? Sure, i'm pulling that "fact" out of my ass, much like pundits for industry are doing with their numbers.
It's all a joke. The companies are thriving, and I don't see people profiteering from sales of copyrighted works. Well, not in the U.S., anyway. Blatant in China and other places? Sure. Yet we seem to love making consumers look like cheap-asses that would never buy anything unless forced. Laws do not resolve problems. Enforcement does. We have too many problems with violent criminals to pay so much attention to this. If we actually enforced these laws fully, rapists would do a 30 day term, due to overpopulation.
The idea that we need more laws and restrictions on this, to fill prisons and cost tax payers, despite our other real issues, is sad. It's also wrong.
The limitation to smoking, and smoking marijuana should be the same as that of other laws created sanely: you cannot perform an activity that encroaches on those rights of others defined by the Constitution. If smoking cigarettes, drinking, or smoking marijuana presents a direct health risk, or indirect (you get in vehicle and drive under influence), then you are in the wrong. Marijuana is not physically addictive, cigarettes (nicotine) are, as is alcohol.
The argument for legalization of marijuana is strong (in my opinion) largely because it has less bad effects than currently legal substances, and has been shown (in Amsterdam) to not see larger use in adults when legalized (or, in that case, where law looks askance). Incidence of use among younger folks is lower there than here, also. I won't bother citing, go look it up for yourself. I believe the same study cited lower use of addictive, more dangerous drugs in Amsterdam also. This makes sense, because if you can get a clean "high", for cheap, why bother to spend many times the money for known dangerous and illegal drugs. Sure, some do. The interest for casual, productive users is probably less, because cocaine, for example, is less convenient, risky, and questionable in content.
Sorry to side track there. To the thread, I say that copyright, trademark, and patenting, all need to be reviewed, and seriously changed.
Are these -your- kids? The government does not own me, or my children. I do not even own "my" kids. So, please, feel free to take your communist (I hope you are an idealist, and not a Socialist) views, shove them up your ass, and add a twist for effect. I refuse to respect any law that forces my children to go anywhere against their will.
Fuck you. Fuck you for pointing out the obvious truth, and qualifying it. Fuck you for adding another reason to just leave this country, in favor of some other place with a lesser political system, but one that gets better results.
You probably feel as saddened as angry about it all, just like me. Fuck us both for not being able to be sheep, and follow the herd while we can.
While I agree with your sentiment, your facts are not facts. They got into trouble for -lying-. Specifically, lying under oath, and lying on national news media.
Take a look at what over zealous use of immunization costs. Taking the worst case scenario of your side of the argument only proves that in fringe cases and exceptional circumstances (malnutrition, poverty, poor sanitation) that induce higher rates in all conditions will there be a good argument for vaccination.
Guillaine Barre' syndrome. Spelling may be off. I got it from vaccinations. 1 in 10,000 WILL get it from vaccinations. More vaccinations is more rolls of the dice. Some ailments aren't worth injecting potentially impure or bacteria laden substances DIRECTLY into the bloodstream for.
There are absolutely two sides to this. If you want to lock me up for not vaccinating my own kids, or otherwise penalize me, I can and will go elsewhere. I don't need a government to decide what rights I have with my/my kids' bodies outside of what is constitutional.
In short: don't tell other people how to live. Also, since when is trusting Bill Gates wise?
It does not meet the criteria for making sense. It does, however, seem to fit neatly into the direction things are going. Individual freedom and expression aren't being outright taken away, just discouraged to the point of pointless.
I wish I had something positive to say here. Really.
Slashdot Mirror
The IRA weren't necessarily terrorists. There is a bigger story.
No edit....
"For all those who want to remove the guns: You can't fight tanks and semi- auto snipers, night vision, and laser guided missiles with sit down protests, dirty looks and really aggressive frowning."
Definition doesn't apply here. There is no real difference either one reaches this same logical conclusion. The whole thing is a puppet show, diverting your attention as your freedom and ability to amass wealth slowly dissolve.
By definition??? Liberal and Conservative are brands. The name plate can say "rose garden" but if it smells like shit, and is gooey like shit, I am pretty sure that is just re-labelled shit. Liberal as in left wing is not "breaking free". If you think national health care will never mean ONE choice, and a "company" that is run based on your worth as a cog in the new Socialist machine, you are just dreaming. Everything comes down to power and money. Big government, or big business. Choose your poison. Either will kill you.
A "liberal" government will be fascist in its implementation here. So will a "conservative" one. Only by going back to our roots, where the rights and freedoms, and power were more focus on the individual, and trickled down to the community, state, and lastly federal governments, can we avoid the end of this road we are on. The second amendment isn't about pistols, and hunting rifles, for example. It is whatever weapons that will strike FEAR in the hearts of any government that wants to erode or deprive your constitutionally-endowed rights and freedoms.
For all those who want to remove the guns: You can't fight tanks and semi- auto snipers with night vision, and laser guided missiles with sit down protests, dirty looks and really aggressive frowning.
Keeping the freedom to say "Fcuk OMABA in his ass with a LAW rocket" may mean having to kill or die at some point.
The shit you see on the news is a diversion. The hand that moves the wires guides a fine puppet show of Liberals versus Conservatives. The other shows are terrorism and "they should make a law for that", to help guide you down the path of ratting out anyone that isn't flagrantly patriotic and supportive of all legal issues, and to help you feel comfortable knowing that the NANNY is making laws to protect you from yourself, and from any free thought.
You wouldn't want to lose your job and your kids by being a "single issue terrorist" and speaking out against the establishment, would you?
TL;DR:
Definition doesn't apply here. There is no real difference one either reaches the logical conclusion. The whole thing is a puppet show, diverting your attention as your freedom and ability to amass wealth slowly dissolve.
I was going to rip you for going on about "paying their fair share", to summarize, for the wealthy.
Then you tied in what I believe to be the single most important, glaring, flaw in our entire system: money from money, and less tax on this "work free" money.
Capital gains should be 30%. Period. I see no reason to allow vapor money to be worth less in tax revenue per dollar than work money.
Tax overseas money at HIGHER rates. Remove shelters. Flatten the code. 12% for EVERYONE of income, 30% for capital gains, with exceptions of homes used as primary living for over 2 years. Hell, maybe even exclude real estate, and use a separate rate.
The overly complex system we have right now only works for the wealthy. Moving from a retarded system to a possibly retarded system can only be more of the same or better.
The Republicans don't have majority in both, and at the time in question the Democrats DID.
Fail more?
You completely missed his/her point. You also fell right in line with all the other sheep. Free thinkers don't really want to be pandered to. Apparently you object to politicians being honest, and want to be pandered to.
I look at our current POTUS, and know that he is an over-priviliged ass that tells the masses how much of a free ride they will get, and how many "rights" they have just for being born. Sorry, Barry, you aren't a founder of the country, and unlike the person I am responding to, I don't want to hear about how you'll spray Febreeze on our shit-burger that gets fed to the working poor to lower middle class in here.
That is a statistic taken out of context, and used to promote an assertion that assumes a context. the 4 per day could very likely be 4people that are either a) law enforcement, b) military, or c) legal concealed carry holders that simply forgot.
A firearm has several things that make it useless for terrorists to try to carry on. Gun powder is readily detected by the dogs. Metal detectors pick up most fire arms as too much metal. Finally, even without x-ray/touchless systems, the size of anything but a (still admittedly useful) low caliber single- shot pistol precludes easy hiding.
The best answer is to allow vigilant military and law enforcement personnel on board the plane, with orders to disregard the value of any one life, to save the many.
Actually:
You can't travel where you want. There are plenty of places that are government operated that cannot be gotten to unless you are government personnel, usually of a specific minimum level.
You cannot work where you want, once the government has completely removed the private sector from every major field. This isn't being done through legisation-directly- as much as indirectly through regulation, and by increasing government jobs' footprint in industries. National healthcare. National energy. Involvement in auto industry. Union promotion and government affiliations.... More anecdotal and tending than real to be sure, at the moment.
Worship as you see fit? Hmmm..... I think here is the big loser. The Judeo-Christian religions are being discriminated in the U.S. at about the level that accusers -say- Muslims are seeing. When the government doesn't allow kids in school to express their Judeo-Christian or other beliefs, yet abide by any Muslim garb or expression, we have a problem. Our government was founded by Christians. Traditions that include phrases like "In GOD we trust" should not be suppressed any more than Iran's Islamic-based government phrases should.
It's time that we stop feeling embarrassed about our country and it's history. It's time to assert our free speech in FAVOR of traditions. Being white should never mean being an apologist, Nor black mean that you should feel angry or held back.
Speak and write.... are you even aware that there are laws that can make you a terrorist for simply asserting your view of a public school's choice of curriculum? Try asking them why they make a big deal about Martin Luther King Jr, and Black history month, without anything similar for the Irish struggle. Tell them that -your- kids will not be partaking in those activities and see what happens. Good luck being an unemployed single issue terrorist that lost his kids.
FACT:
The federal government has never been constitutionally tasked with lending money for anything to any private entity. Both of you lose. You've been trumped by the fact that the money should have never existed.
Wait, you ACTUALLY said that garbage. Look, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but Obama is rich. His proposed "buffett law" would only tax the working wealthy. Capital gains and taxes on assets are what affects the truly wealthy. Of course Buffett wants to be taxed on his INCOME. Just don't touch his dividends or gains from the market, or his ridiculous personal wealth. Yes, he already paid taxes on his wealth. Yep, at lower rates due to capital gains or other maneuverings.
Feigned caring is what I see. Feigned so as to keep people from seeking the truth. I don't trust either party. I especially don't trust a part that wants to grow government, and let unions exert ridiculous levels of control. Big government and big unions are both bad, and were never meant to be. We needed unions, but we no longer need what they've become. We don't need FEDERAL programs. Keep Health Education, and Welfare at state levels.
We are individuals with a set of rights, in a united republic of individual states, with a federal government for dealing with international, trade, interstate roads, national defense, and a handful of other purposes. We are too far from what was intended, in government growth, at all levels.
I agree that we need to use oil in the near- term, and quit throwing money at ridiculously expensive alternatives that don't have reliability. Nuclear is reliable, and newer plants will have safety measures that surpass the decades old standards of plants that have had issues. Modern combustion vehicles can be powered by on- demand generated HYDROGEN. No batteries. No BS with low power, high cost. You aren't storing miniature Hindenburg levels, you don't even have to store at all. Emissions... aren't.
While I strongly support ditching alternative garbage near-term, which supports the oil industry, I am quite certain that the oil industry is the leading reason why the hydrogen powered combustion never got off the ground much.
Please note that BMW has done this. I know of a real world converted vehicle that gets better power than gas.
I also know that, just like the 110+ octane fuel made from roadside "nuisance" grass in Indiana will never be mass produced.
We need to think like a country gone corporate. We need to promise big oil our love, and then ditch them with the reminder that they tried to usurp our authority as their boss (the consumer).
All my moderately informed opinion. Converting to hydrogen now would force a LOT of lost jobs, as an aside. We need to be back on top before doing this.
The whole thing regarding your description seems rather disingenuous. I am sure that you must realize that the primary tenant of the Tea Party is that the Federal Government is too large, and by shrinking it your taxes will be reduced. Well huzzah another large part of that shrinkage will include elimination of much regulation of large corporations.
I'm good with that. Compared to expanding government. I will take ultimate freedom over being locked into having the government own everything, run business, tell me when i'm too sick to bother treating, etc. Yes, insurance companies TRY to do it too, but you can sue, and you can even use the government for that.
Removing garbage like welfare for life, bullshit bailouts and free money for failing, well that would be a good government shrink. The EPA? too much power. Unions..... WAY too much. We even lock up drug dealers for longer than rapists, because the government propagates the lies about drugs ruining the world.
Let me ask this:
How do we compete with China, if our work environments are wide open for safety, pollution, discrimination, and numerous other lawsuits frivolously filed, and subject to union threats of shutdown if assembly line workers don't make the same as well educated IT workers?
How can we continue to give away billions for aid to other countries, while we spiral out of control into debt?
Why are we giving away money to support research into pointless endeavors like electric cars? Solar? While we are not balancing the budget? Extending unemployment so far out that between that and welfare people can live most of their life in government CONDO housing, and still have a big screen TV.
Why is it that minorities MUST make up about 46% of any federally backed loans, regardless of ability to pay, if a bank wants to qualify for federal backing?
Do we really need a government to be so large that it perpetuates funding for bad ideas like treating races of people as "different"?
Do we need government to prevent businesses from failing, yet keep unions in force, therefore keeping labor costs ridiculously out of scale?
This same big government is not raising capital gains. Obama had 2 full years to do anything he felt was important. He crammed his garbage money pit health care through on a "budget" vote, instead of increasing cap gains, as a priority.
The TEA party isn't a 100% answer. It is much farther down the road than the two parties that run things as one mind.
What if I don't want steam running on my machine. I am sure you think it's fine. I don't . I run my machines lean, and I refuse to install Steam due to it's insistence on being a launching platform for when I play.
I grew up with: Buy game. Install game. Play game. End game. No game services or processes running. Play next game. repeat.
This is MY PC and I want absolute control over every fucking bit of software running, and if it's done running, it's processes should fuck off and die. Until resurrected by me.
Interesting...... So... if the software companies are enjoying a >300 billion dollar business, with 85% piracy, I guess that they actually deserve more like 2 or so TRILLION per year, right?
Could we stop with making up numbers for copyright infringement that are supposed to represent losses, when there is no way that the shovelware being pushed out could ever actually get that much purchased? Sure, i'm pulling that "fact" out of my ass, much like pundits for industry are doing with their numbers.
It's all a joke. The companies are thriving, and I don't see people profiteering from sales of copyrighted works. Well, not in the U.S., anyway. Blatant in China and other places? Sure. Yet we seem to love making consumers look like cheap-asses that would never buy anything unless forced. Laws do not resolve problems. Enforcement does. We have too many problems with violent criminals to pay so much attention to this. If we actually enforced these laws fully, rapists would do a 30 day term, due to overpopulation.
The idea that we need more laws and restrictions on this, to fill prisons and cost tax payers, despite our other real issues, is sad. It's also wrong.
I disagree. If you haven't made your money in 15 years, let others build on it, and reap the goodwill from "giving" something to the world.
The limitation to smoking, and smoking marijuana should be the same as that of other laws created sanely: you cannot perform an activity that encroaches on those rights of others defined by the Constitution. If smoking cigarettes, drinking, or smoking marijuana presents a direct health risk, or indirect (you get in vehicle and drive under influence), then you are in the wrong. Marijuana is not physically addictive, cigarettes (nicotine) are, as is alcohol.
The argument for legalization of marijuana is strong (in my opinion) largely because it has less bad effects than currently legal substances, and has been shown (in Amsterdam) to not see larger use in adults when legalized (or, in that case, where law looks askance). Incidence of use among younger folks is lower there than here, also. I won't bother citing, go look it up for yourself. I believe the same study cited lower use of addictive, more dangerous drugs in Amsterdam also. This makes sense, because if you can get a clean "high", for cheap, why bother to spend many times the money for known dangerous and illegal drugs. Sure, some do. The interest for casual, productive users is probably less, because cocaine, for example, is less convenient, risky, and questionable in content.
Sorry to side track there. To the thread, I say that copyright, trademark, and patenting, all need to be reviewed, and seriously changed.
Are these -your- kids? The government does not own me, or my children. I do not even own "my" kids. So, please, feel free to take your communist (I hope you are an idealist, and not a Socialist) views, shove them up your ass, and add a twist for effect. I refuse to respect any law that forces my children to go anywhere against their will.
Summary: go piss up a rope.
It was a budgetary matter. They have already used the majority vote process to pass key legislation that could be loosely called budgetary.
Fuck you. Fuck you for pointing out the obvious truth, and qualifying it. Fuck you for adding another reason to just leave this country, in favor of some other place with a lesser political system, but one that gets better results.
You probably feel as saddened as angry about it all, just like me. Fuck us both for not being able to be sheep, and follow the herd while we can.
While I agree with your sentiment, your facts are not facts. They got into trouble for -lying-. Specifically, lying under oath, and lying on national news media.
Take a look at what over zealous use of immunization costs. Taking the worst case scenario of your side of the argument only proves that in fringe cases and exceptional circumstances (malnutrition, poverty, poor sanitation) that induce higher rates in all conditions will there be a good argument for vaccination.
Guillaine Barre' syndrome. Spelling may be off. I got it from vaccinations. 1 in 10,000 WILL get it from vaccinations. More vaccinations is more rolls of the dice. Some ailments aren't worth injecting potentially impure or bacteria laden substances DIRECTLY into the bloodstream for.
There are absolutely two sides to this. If you want to lock me up for not vaccinating my own kids, or otherwise penalize me, I can and will go elsewhere. I don't need a government to decide what rights I have with my/my kids' bodies outside of what is constitutional.
In short: don't tell other people how to live. Also, since when is trusting Bill Gates wise?
It does not meet the criteria for making sense. It does, however, seem to fit neatly into the direction things are going. Individual freedom and expression aren't being outright taken away, just discouraged to the point of pointless.
I wish I had something positive to say here. Really.
You are clearly ate the fuck up.
I think you are bogged down in standards.