For a guy who likes Executive Orders so much, you'd think he would have written one or two here... maybe suspending section 215 entirely for a few months as motivation for pursuing "appropriate reforms".
What you have might not be legal soon, unless you at least add an HSA. There are both maximum and minimum limits to coverage, outside of which you are fined (unless you're a government worker).
Only if you can cover the legal fees, you buck-toothed jackass. In other words, no better than the USA, and probably worse because at least in the USA you have a good chance of getting a lawyer pro bono or on contingency. British law makes this more difficult.
The problem we have here is that the Europeans who cheered when Obama came to power are still his primary supporters.
Obama now has more people opposed to his policies than for them in the USA, but the EU is still pulling for him. They assume, since Americans are all fat, violent ignoramuses who don't know what's best for them (other than voting Obama in, of course), that Obamacare must be some wonderful single-payer system. At least single-payer would only have government corruption to deal with. Through Obamacare, we get to have the worst of both government corruption and corporate greed. Whoever is in office while this abomination (or should I say, Obamanation) is in place gets to benefit from the graft, obscurity, and general immorality of the law and twist it to their own purposes.
Sometimes private companies do deny treatments, and I find this immoral. But we have a legal system in place to punish them. When the NHS lets you die because cancer treatments cost too much, the subject has no recourse. The government is supreme, and holds the power of life and death over you.
- GP didn't say what party (if any) he was affiliated with; - Obamacare does nothing to enforce a ceiling on health care costs-- it just forces you to a lowest-common-denominator pool if you can't afford it, - The GP didn't say the current system was OK, so you've created a false dilemma by claiming that if he doesn't like Obamacare, then he must be OK with the status quo. - Obamacare is not single-payer, so claiming that we will get results similar to nations with single payer is supported by nothing.
Actually, there is a decided lack of actual science in any of the links. There are nearly no statistics, and lots of "can" or "may" statements. Lead fishing weights are cited-- but bullets aren't used for fishing and are bigger than lead weights so this is called speculation. Heck, there are more "can cans" than Paris in 1890, and more red herrings than the Baltic Sea in these links.
Anyhoo, since you asked, here's why lead is still wanted: density. Look it up. And the only effective replacement is a copper military round that the gun-grabbing left is calling "armor piercing". So the plan of the statists is to outlaw the lead bullet and heavily regulate its "cop killing", "armor piercing" replacement so that no one can get ammo... except for those who are willing to load their own lead ammo and become criminals.
You have a much larger chance of having dangerously high iron content in your groundwater from having a few rusty old cars on your land. Not only is lead mostly inert due to the protective oxidized layer that it quickly accumulates (like aluminum), it isn't water soluble unless it's exposed to large amounts of carbon dioxide. Although you really don't want it lying around, it's not "seeping" anywhere.
This is exactly why we can't allow government to control this debate. They will twist an environmental issue into a de facto way to disarm the public by shutting down all private ranges.
So crime has followed the use and disuse of lead in gasoline and paint. Has it followed the use of lead in bullets, which have been used almost exclusively in hand-held firearms since the 14th century?
I'm more concerned about the quick kind of lead poisoning, where some bad guy inserts it directly by use of a gunpowder propulsion method.
Mingling security concerns with zealotry doesn't serve anyone. TOR team has discredited themselves with an immature response to a routine security issue, based not on an actual technological issue but on fanboyism. TOR favors Linux and the Mac OS over Windows, and uses this security issue as an opportunity to attack Windows rather than stick to the facts and keep their users safe. This is an issue to which both Firefox and Windows are to blame, yet they don't tell us to stop using Firefox, even while acknowledging that it is technically possible for a future exploit to affect Firefox running on platforms other than Windows.
If the proper response to a security issue involving TOR is to stop using my operating system, that might just as well justify a user to stop using TOR.
The existence of H1B visas is a mechanism to stimulate business, not a right for corporations to sidestep the immigration process for their own benefit. Ordinarily, we would require these people to only be here for a very short time or have to go through the long naturalization process. So yes, you would have to hire the dick, because if not for the privilege of the H1B visa, you would have no choice but to hire the dick. In the USA, I want citizens who will come here, STAY here, and join the rest of us in enriching this nation-- not come here to be exploited, then shipped back.
Slashdot Mirror
Your own statement refutes its own point by illustrating how doggedly following party lines blinds you to the abuses of the ruling class.
For a guy who likes Executive Orders so much, you'd think he would have written one or two here... maybe suspending section 215 entirely for a few months as motivation for pursuing "appropriate reforms".
That's because you're using the Bostitch. I use a Swingline, with Swingline staples to ensure compatibility.
Better to fire Usain Bolt. Then you can tell the ATF that it's a Bolt-action weapon.
What you have might not be legal soon, unless you at least add an HSA. There are both maximum and minimum limits to coverage, outside of which you are fined (unless you're a government worker).
Only if you can cover the legal fees, you buck-toothed jackass. In other words, no better than the USA, and probably worse because at least in the USA you have a good chance of getting a lawyer pro bono or on contingency. British law makes this more difficult.
We already have many Karl Marxs on here; your services are not needed.
Nothing is going to cost less than $370 unless you're already on public assistance. OK, the fine for having no coverage will cost less.
You don't even know what a neocon is. Neocons like Obamacare. It resembles what was proposed in 1994 to counter Hillarycare (a single-payer system).
The problem we have here is that the Europeans who cheered when Obama came to power are still his primary supporters. Obama now has more people opposed to his policies than for them in the USA, but the EU is still pulling for him. They assume, since Americans are all fat, violent ignoramuses who don't know what's best for them (other than voting Obama in, of course), that Obamacare must be some wonderful single-payer system. At least single-payer would only have government corruption to deal with. Through Obamacare, we get to have the worst of both government corruption and corporate greed. Whoever is in office while this abomination (or should I say, Obamanation) is in place gets to benefit from the graft, obscurity, and general immorality of the law and twist it to their own purposes.
Sometimes private companies do deny treatments, and I find this immoral. But we have a legal system in place to punish them. When the NHS lets you die because cancer treatments cost too much, the subject has no recourse. The government is supreme, and holds the power of life and death over you.
Problems with your argument:
- GP didn't say what party (if any) he was affiliated with;
- Obamacare does nothing to enforce a ceiling on health care costs-- it just forces you to a lowest-common-denominator pool if you can't afford it,
- The GP didn't say the current system was OK, so you've created a false dilemma by claiming that if he doesn't like Obamacare, then he must be OK with the status quo.
- Obamacare is not single-payer, so claiming that we will get results similar to nations with single payer is supported by nothing.
No, they don't. But the US government likes to call the Tea Party terrorist... and they're activists, too.
It was probably a joke on Letterman 20 years ago-- and last week.
When is that schmuck going to retire, anyway?
Nihilists and anarchists? As much as I like to bash these politicians... not likely.
Actually, there is a decided lack of actual science in any of the links. There are nearly no statistics, and lots of "can" or "may" statements. Lead fishing weights are cited-- but bullets aren't used for fishing and are bigger than lead weights so this is called speculation. Heck, there are more "can cans" than Paris in 1890, and more red herrings than the Baltic Sea in these links. Anyhoo, since you asked, here's why lead is still wanted: density. Look it up. And the only effective replacement is a copper military round that the gun-grabbing left is calling "armor piercing". So the plan of the statists is to outlaw the lead bullet and heavily regulate its "cop killing", "armor piercing" replacement so that no one can get ammo... except for those who are willing to load their own lead ammo and become criminals.
Lead does not dissolve in water. A small number of lead salts do.
You have a much larger chance of having dangerously high iron content in your groundwater from having a few rusty old cars on your land. Not only is lead mostly inert due to the protective oxidized layer that it quickly accumulates (like aluminum), it isn't water soluble unless it's exposed to large amounts of carbon dioxide. Although you really don't want it lying around, it's not "seeping" anywhere.
Naturally, you were modded "Troll" because you made a reasoned and balanced argument.
This is exactly why we can't allow government to control this debate. They will twist an environmental issue into a de facto way to disarm the public by shutting down all private ranges.
So crime has followed the use and disuse of lead in gasoline and paint. Has it followed the use of lead in bullets, which have been used almost exclusively in hand-held firearms since the 14th century?
I'm more concerned about the quick kind of lead poisoning, where some bad guy inserts it directly by use of a gunpowder propulsion method.
Awesome for you.
Mingling security concerns with zealotry doesn't serve anyone. TOR team has discredited themselves with an immature response to a routine security issue, based not on an actual technological issue but on fanboyism. TOR favors Linux and the Mac OS over Windows, and uses this security issue as an opportunity to attack Windows rather than stick to the facts and keep their users safe. This is an issue to which both Firefox and Windows are to blame, yet they don't tell us to stop using Firefox, even while acknowledging that it is technically possible for a future exploit to affect Firefox running on platforms other than Windows.
If the proper response to a security issue involving TOR is to stop using my operating system, that might just as well justify a user to stop using TOR.
The existence of H1B visas is a mechanism to stimulate business, not a right for corporations to sidestep the immigration process for their own benefit. Ordinarily, we would require these people to only be here for a very short time or have to go through the long naturalization process. So yes, you would have to hire the dick, because if not for the privilege of the H1B visa, you would have no choice but to hire the dick. In the USA, I want citizens who will come here, STAY here, and join the rest of us in enriching this nation-- not come here to be exploited, then shipped back.
Seems a little dangerous for that algorithm to be the default, doesn't it? Plus, burying the warning deep in the documentation.