PK htiw klaw eriF

From what I've been able to tell she had a history of depression, could be the straw as Malc suggested. What I find funny is that those who will be making crocodile tears about this are the same who cry about the evil of trigger warnings and the need for snowflakes to toughen up.

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 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. Minus the generalization, what ur saying is that because people have guns, there will be deaths by guns....of course, just like having swimming pools causes more people to die from drowning. If ur okay with a small amount of victims drowning then ur okay owning and supporting having swimming pools. It's one of those accepted factors like how there are 4-5 times more deaths and 20 times more injuries with knives but we ain't going bananas Everytime one happens, it's the same idea with guns here.The thing is think of how the Muslims are viewed as extremists and apply that to "gun nuts" as far as the numbers of them. There's far far far less than people think lol. And in response to drowning there are several "swimming pool control" laws like Virgina Graham Baker and if a kid drowned in a pool I am willing to bet you will see regulations about warning signs or child proof fences around the pool or SVRS pumps being required. For guns some dude can check into a hotel room and gun down country music fans and no laws will pass concerning guns. Whatever your feelings are on the matter, that guns receieve special treatment is a fact.

The analogy is stupid because the ISPs aren't a record store. I've already purchased the product, which is access to a hypothetical store that lets me listen to almost every record ever if we're going with the record analogy. The demise of net neutrality means I get steered into whatever the music store wants me to listen to, with other music either requiring me to pay more to listen to it as well as the store approved music or deal with delays and inconveniences for my unconventional choice. You'd have to be stupid or a bootlicker to think this is a good idea.

I think it's far more likely libertarians are still trying to figure out what the **** a leppo is and watching fat guys doing strip teases.

I ran into my ex and now she looks happily married with a kid. Meanwhile I'm sitting alone in front of my computer. I think I ****ed up somewhere along the line.

Keep your hands off Sharpie's real doll.

I got traashed on 12 shots of jameson and 3 Dragon's milk stouts.

Sharpie never reads past the headline.

FREEDOM YES

And the issues arise from the low success rate of the gamble, the high costs of failure, and the tendency of wealth to concentrate among the few successful. Consider the opposite to your examples, someone who worked their ass off for years to start a business that failed, not through laziness but just bad luck and ends up buried in debt because of it. Extrapolate this and we end up with very few winners and quite a lot of losers. Now we can go on about how life isn't fair and that's certainly true, but the social contract is built upon an agreement that society is for everyone's best interests. If the masses were to no longer feel that way, and instead reach the conclusion that society was not in their best interests, do you honestly think they would support the wealth of a fraction of the population out of fairness for their hard work over busting out the guillotine? Life isn't fair afterall, and the few who prosper aren't owed loyalty by those who don't. All hypothetically of course. I'm glad you brought up Gromnir, he certainly beat all odds to become a successful lawyer. I know three remarkable individuals myself. One is a guy my age whose diet consists almost entirely of fast food yet he is a skinny bastard. The other claims to have never worn a condom and had no stds or need to pay for an abortion despite having some success with the fairer sex. The third was a distant relative who smoked more than a pack a day since 16 and he died getting hit by a drunk driver when close to 70 with no lung issues in his life. Now if entering a debate on diet/nutrition, preventing unwanted pregnancy or stds, or the effects of smoking on one's lungs do you think these remarkable cases disprove the evidence that if you eat mostly fast food you'll most likely get fat, if you **** without condoms you'll most likely get a nasty surprise of one sort or another, or that if you smoke a back a day you'll most likely get cancer?

No one mentioned equal outcome regardless of labor put in. I understand that's an easier argument to address, but we're talking about something else here. As to your examples of rags to riches, good on them. However when the majoroty of cases are rags to rags and riches to riches, those inspiring examples won't do much for a guy whose father worked 40 hours a week to end up living in poverty and him on the same track.

On the other hand when you factor out government subsidies about half the population is under the poverty line, I'll take some liberty and assume that they are generally correlated with those paying a net 0 or less income tax. Perhaps increasing their tax burden through a flat tax without deductions would make them hate those in that 10% (or .1% if we want to be very accurate) and push for polices even more punitive than what we have now. I mean try telling a guy who can barely pay his bills when he and his wife work a combined 80 hours a week they need to suck it up for a well off guy with and big house and decent cars to get a break and I doubt you'll have a warm reception.

I think the question is how will Beamdog manage to make NWN worse?

A flat tax ends up being regressive based upon how spending and wealth accumulation actually works. So much for the tolerant mods. Fake news, Trump is playing 3d chess betacucks can't comprehend.

If anything a flat tax on income would exacerbate the issues of wealth concentration and poverty. Going back to the idealistic graphs in the irrefutable science of basic economics, the lines for income and spending have different slopes and starting points. A 15% tax on income would make it harder on those whoze income is under around the spending level while benfitting who are way above it with more capital to invest. I mean I guess it's a good idea if you're a radical leftist accelerationist who thinks the working class won't revolt until things get bad, but otherwise I can't see why anyone would think this is a good idea.

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? Milllionaires would end up homeless apparently.

Did the massive Stalinist network finally get to him? Quoting someone is a strawman.

Teachers need to have skin in the game so they know how hard it is to be a milllionaire.

So you support throwing families to streets because Grandpa who owned the house died. How German of you. Quoting someone is now making stuff up. r00fles

Well they did start with taxation. Learn history of your people Nazi! I guess Nazism really does date back to the Roman Empire and those occultists were right about being from Atlantis. I find it funny that they'd tell a guy who wound up on the street because he lost his job to pull himself up by his bootstraps but millionaires should be coddled or else they'll end up homeless.

I think the jews slaughtered by the Nazis would have much preferred the evil of getting taxed on inheritence over $1 million than a gas chamber.

He's absolutely right, if you don't start out with over a million you've essentially been thrown out on the street. If you don't have cash for paying the tax for inherited property which is the house you live in, then you go out on the street. Socialism 101. If you don't the wealth to aford to live in an over $1mil home with inheritance, then you're going to sell the property regardless of inheritance tax. It seems you're in need of something a little simpler than 101.

He's absolutely right, if you don't start out with over a million you've essentially been thrown out on the street.

Michael Fassbender would be my personal favorite from that generation, and Tom Hardy is up there for certain as well. Some actors who come to mind that I think are as good or better, or at least worthy of consideration (all within five years of Gosling's age): Michael Fassbender Tom Hardy Chiwetel Ejiofor Tahar Rahim Oscar Isaac Jake Gyllenhaal Reported for neglecting Cillian Murphy.

****.