Pidesco

Since they are both tools, the design doesn't really matter to much. It maybe weird outside the country, but here most Americans view guns design in the same way as a kitchen knife. They both tools that have a purpose (guns-hunting/protection, kitchen knife-cut and Pierce flesh) but can easily end a life thru purpose or accident. I have to disagree. Guns are your cultural fetish, I'd argue. A sizeable percentage of Americans doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time at knife ranges, or have special knife cabinets, or make a ritual out of cleaning knives or hold huge knife conventions. Also, a National Knife Association with 5 million members does not exist. All the talk about how guns are for protection, or that they are useful tools, or even that they are an inalienable right is all just a rationalization. It's not even about the killing. The simple truth is that you love owning, looking at, and using guns. A lot. They are a cultural staple for many. In and of itself, individually, there's not much wrong with this. People should love doing whatever they want and most people that love guns are responsible about it. The problem is that this cultural status ends up being the reason why there are so many gun deaths in the US. That so many people have an emotional relationship with guns means that, statistically, some guns will inevitably end up in the hands of those that are careless, dumb, incompetent or mentally ill in some way. This inevitably gets people killed.

Gun is designed to defend and protect. Trump 2020! Like cannons. Or mustard gas.

"Why am I so jolly?"

Maybe not Trump, but at least Kushner or perhaps Jr.

You do realize that the first link casts doubt on the second link?

Here ya go:

Nothing in that article states that the protesters killed the horse. Additionally there were both far right and far left demonstrators there.

Keep in mind that I am against the death penalty, so I think the following death sentences should not have happened. According to this list, 146 war criminals were sentenced to death after WW2. That's of 355 sentences, if my use of Firefox's find is correct. Are you seriously comparing this to over 15 million dead? I have no idea how many people Nazi hunters got killed, but I'd wager it's a somewhat smaller number than the holocaust. Somewhat.

You even dream about it with a low res, bad colour gif.

"Yeah, they were victims of genocide, but the victims were evil too, so it's okay. If only people would understand that the appropriate response to genocide is more genocide."

Regardless of whether she is being disingenuous about it (I think she is), using a racial slur to describe her, even as a joke, is not ok. That Trumpelthinskin decided to use that racial slur during a meeting with the Navajo is indefensible.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-pocahontas-elizabeth-warren-native-americans-slur-silence-comments-latest-a8079071.html Trump holds a ceremony for the Navajo code talkers in front of painting of Andrew Jackson and makes a Pocahontas joke during it.

Does that mean the person of the year was 4chan?

They might even have engaged in conversation with each other.

Seems like bad advice when tailored to achieving a goal that includes having kids. If they don't keep that goal to last they simply won't make it outside of being very lucky.

Wonder if they can also ditch the car. I'm assuming commuting without the car in the US is a risky proposition.

Work really hard, spend money only on essentials, pay off all debt, pray you don't get any unexpected expenses(especially medical), be lucky. Edit: Oh, and do not have kids.

Roughly speaking, there's two sorts of people that think this is a good idea: a) Really rich people who are rat bastards. b) People who, through the vicissitudes of life, ended up believing all you need to succeed is lots of effort and a adequate supply of boot straps. Often, people in category b) have reached their own views partially thanks to the efforts of people in category a).

I was going to write something somewhat lengthy regarding flat taxes, directed at Guard Dog but I screwed up and lost my post. Basically, flat taxes exacerbate the fact that rich people have a much easier time of getting richer than poor people. 15% of earnings for a person living just above the poverty line is a much harsher tax than 15% of earnings for a millionaire.

The problem that Unions help with is always there and is never solved. Unions are a pain because it's easy to use them to exacerbate the problems they were created to solve. Same with governments, I guess. Also, there are masses and masses of problems and issues that you need a government to manage, and they are not going away in any time frame.

Usually people die when they seriously try don't they? That was given for Ben's example and I said how I would be okay with that. I'm totally for restricting people pay and capping it, we don't need people who sole job is to continue being with the govt besides judges. Senators and whatnot I believe should be on the same restriction like presidents in only serving so many terms then cut off and can't. I mean this is people who make their money taking everyone's money, at least with businesses u get something back. That bolded bit is a nice joke. I often feel government bashing Americans should read up on their own country's history. Or perhaps recent news. American corporations have always been the main actor when screwing over the American population, even if often the tool of that exploitation was the government itself. Once upon a time, one of those corporate guys was even elected president. Big success. Huge.

So how about restricting government position's wages, and cracking down on lobbying instead of getting rid of a progressive tax?

Getting a tattoo that's paid in Tic Tacs.seems to me like a risky proposition. Wasn't the 85% number applicable only above 1 million bucks? What's wrong with that? Lmao I'm down with over 1 million IF like I said any person who has at any time been a govt representative (mayor/governor/president/IRS/etc) has 85% of anything they own of value goes to the people straight down middle without going to ANY charity OR organization tax free. Basically every 3 months, American citizens get a check in the mail of any govt officials who have died. So your problem is that government officials use the money from the inheritance tax to refurbish their private homes? And what about people that became millionaires by lobbying the hell out of the government, or from gigantic tax handouts?

Getting a tattoo that's paid in Tic Tacs seems to me like a risky proposition. Wasn't the 85% number applicable only above 1 million bucks? What's wrong with that?

The linear brushstrokes of the face along with the narrow tonal range and restricted palette result in a flat portrait that is completely overshadowed by the background. Wow! what is going on here? The artist has broadly stroked out the tiniest variations in texture and tone of the background, and clearly spent a great deal of time and attention here. The wider palette and complementary blues and golds create irresistible drama. This is a background with a powerful identity all of its own and serves not to ‘pop’ the subject out but in the end invite us to look around the head and pay attention to what is hidden. So while on the one hand it’s a pandering, finely delineated illusion, fusing the backer with the game, on the other it suggests that this in itself isn’t exciting, it’s a little flat, and perhaps argues that to force the real into the fantasy will result in something boring obscuring something interesting, bullying it out of view. Is it saying that the picture space is the artist’s time, and when the subject bought and paid for this they gained a portrait but something else was lost?, something potentially brilliant? In the end it is the work of an artist obscured by a money-exchange motivated work of a craftsman, as all backer portraits are. I delete them from every game they appear in. P.S. what was the removed item? Hahaha.