213374U

It sounds silly, but it could happen. I don't have a concrete answer either. Mostly because I can't wrap my mind around the idea of a single rule being valid for everyone, always. How old's your daughter, anyways? (cough) Funny. When the State ends the life of somebody, we say "it was JUSTICE". When I go and stab somebody then it's "murder". Or not. It depends on what the lawmakers at the time agree murder is, no? In principle I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere, but that is mostly completely disconnected from reality. It's just a matter of bureaucratic feasibility. So, please, tell me where you get this unwavering certainty from, that lets you see "pretty clearly" where the line needs to be drawn. Or I could be dishonest and assume you are just making stuff up as you go or quoting directly from your Bible.

My guess would be it's subtly hinting that you should seek qualified help. NOW.

I'm not disputing that. Laws come and go, though. Yes, and anyone should be able to see that the Earth is flat. Only, it isn't. A 13 yr old doesn't have the judgement required. How about a 14-and-a-day year old? How about a 17 year old? What exactly are you basing those frankly random statements on, other than anecdotal evidence and cultural indoctrination? I said it's "debatable" because "a child" can be about anything you want. You also don't explain why "a child" cannot give consent. This is, of course, tangential, as in this particular case, the victim did NOT consent. Mind you, I am NOT defending Polanski. It's just that these automatic value judgements rub me off the wrong way. No idea. Why don't you tell me? That's precisely what I meant by "debatable".

Debatable.

Gotta love it when asshats that fail to understand the basics of the rule of law get appointed to a cabinet. Happens all the time, too.

I don't like weighted pushups. But that's just me, my right shoulder likes to act up, and if I don't place my shoulder blades in a "lock" before pressing, my shoulder feels it. Rule of thumb goes, try it - if it hurts, don't do it. If you can manage to get the weight not to move at all while you do the exercise, you should be fine. Just watch your form, don't allow your lower back to relax. What are you asking about back exercises for? Anyway, if you have a barbell: if you wanna grow, you gotta row.

Where does one rent PC games? At the local rental shop?

I actually agree with this. Becoming a sword is a process that's violent yet cold, cruel yet methodical. But that is only the beginning, isn't it? A sword's expected life and intended task is much worse, without guarantees of a happy ending or just reward. The necessary agent of the irrational natural order of things: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"

That makes sense. These things do look a bit too much like Ponzi schemes for my taste, tbh. The thing is you can always cancel your insurance if you feel you're being ripped off. You can't very well stop paying taxes if you feel your money isn't being used for what it's supposed to, can you? Themselves?

If the problem is with your toe and not your ankle, you could try . edit: @Gfted1: I don't care if there's hair somewhere near her areola...

Um... only it would be simpler to allow Shep to tell them to "take a hike" when they first meet. I don't understand. Why do they keep shoving NPCs down our throat regardless of player choice? Are Bio writers so enamoured with their own work that they truly believe that everyone absolutely, positively needs to experience the bliss that is their NPC design and writing? I've hated this since KotOR, and apparently, it's here to stay. DA?

Okay, fine. Let's assume it does not ACTIVELY promote unhealthy living habits. I'm taking that back. Do you people also need "evidence" that it is inherently unfair as it doesn't have those that WILL cause greater expenses to the system pay more? This in effect means that responsible people are paying the consequences of the excesses of those that just don't care. Oh, wait. I didn't show "evidence" that obesity leads to cardiovascular disease and smoking leads to cancer, right? Silly me. Nah. UHC saves money by being understaffed, underequipped and overcrowded. It wouldn't be as expensive as current premiums are, even more so considering the current lack of real competition in that sector. Uh, yes. I said: No, I was simply arguing from the premises given. That UHC will be cheaper for the vast majority than insurance premiums. If many people already can't afford it, and taxes to cover for it were expected to be higher than premiums are now, for everyone, there wouldn't really be an argument - hence my question "what's the point?" I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything but your word to support that, and the fact that anything government-run is more inefficient.

What the hell? That's exactly what I'm saying. Diagonal reading is bad for you. I was asking what's the point if you need to raise taxes to the point where there's no difference between paying a premium (current system) and the increased taxes needed to set up UHC (proposed system). What savings are you talking about? Of course I'm not arguing that government programs are more efficient. As a matter of fact, I said exactly the opposite in, uh, the post right above yours. ???

Sigh. Did you really read what I posted or you just hit "reply" at "promotes unhealthy living habits"? I did explain HOW this happens. People in risk groups pay higher premiums. People in risk groups pay the SAME taxes as everyone else. Thus, people have one less reason to worry about their health. That doesn't mean the current system is flawless or guarantees healthy living. But that has nothing to do with what I said. Let's stick to what I say, not what you wish or imagine I say, m'kay? Point out whatever you like, but you aren't presenting any evidence yourself, either. A government-managed UHC works like every government-related thing. Badly, slowly and inefficiently. And they do work on a budget there, too. That's a luxury tax. It has nothing to do with health concerns. No smoking in bars and elsewhere is neither here nor there. It's just a fad. Hahaha. This is pretty rich coming from the guy that calls others naive. Thanks for the laugh chum.

There won't be savings, you say? But isn't the whole point to make it "affordable" for everyone? If you are raising taxes to a point where there's no difference between paying premiums or paying taxes... uh...

Not directly, perhaps, assuming you don't get crap like sex change surgery and assisted reproduction therapy, which you do where I live. You don't get help for your cavities, though, or glasses if you need them. Not having to worry about insurance means you have more money for other things. So, you are getting the whole of society to pay for something you would have to shoulder on your own, getting perhaps a second house, a third car, or whatever, with what you're saving in premiums. And it doesn't matter if you make use of it or not - it needs to be there should you ever need it. The State is indirectly subsidizing your luxuries. That may be good from a consumption standpoint, but it's hardly fair. Further, UHC promotes unhealthy living habits. Or at least, it makes no difference between the person that doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and keeps track of eating habits and the overweight, heavy-drinking, 2-pack-a-day smoker that goes nowhere without his car. Who is going to pay the bill when that person needs medical attention due to his unhealthy lifestyle? And does the person who makes an effort to be healthy get to pay less taxes? Again, unfairness and dissolution of accountability.

Are library workers often the victims of attacks with office material?

Such a setup rewards laziness and cheating, and those values aren't a very good thing to promote. Why work for it if I can get it for free? Because it's the right thing to do? Heh. You'd have to ask them directly to know what their stance is on the issue, wouldn't you? State agencies exist because it's difficult for the individual to finance a trip to the moon or a carpet bombing campaign. Difficult, not necessarily impossible. But we're trying to be reasonable, right?

lol wat I'm European. You're not convincing me for **** either.

Hey, thanks. I had forgotten how good some HL tracks are.

True. No need to feel bad, though. I'm sure anyone here is more than willing to tell any girls what they are doing wrong, too.

Hehe. Yeah, the conventional wisdom (read: guru mantra) now goes like that. The thing with curls is that the biceps is actually a rather small muscle. Bicep gains are going to be nowhere near as good as leg or back gains, if at all. Doing things like bentover rows and pullups you are hitting your arms pretty hard, and but you're also getting the added benefit of a stronger grip and some pretty good back work. Compound exercises' chief advantage is that they recruit several muscle groups (duh), which means greater fat burning and increased testosterone levels. You really don't need to throw in bicep curls on top of that, as it's a pretty crappy muscle and easy to overtrain, especially if you are a beginner. Now, why is it said that you'll eventually hit a wall with bicep curls? Because of the way it's trained and the way dumbells are made, added to the above. Bicep curls are for some people actually more of a brachialis exercise (especially if you use the EZ bar and/or preach), than strict bicep work. The brachialis is a very strong muscle, but it's limiting the amount of work done by the bicep. Add to that the fact that dumbells generally increase in weight rather drastically (~2,5kg), and it's easy to see why curls aren't getting much love. That's not to say isolation exercises are useless or worthless, ofc. Just difficult to fit into a beginner's routine as effectively as would be desirable. Starting Strength Wiki. Good starting routines, good advice on progression, diet, cardio, rest periods, etc. No bicep curls whatsoever, and it's guaranteed to get you stronger. Squat, my boy, is the word. Sorry to steal your thunder, Wals. I'm stepping back now, promise.

Yes, if things were done right, "there would be no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ..." Seriously, you really need to stop watching so much Star Trek. The real world does not work like that at all, no matter how much ideologues and naive idealists wish otherwise. National defense is one of the few things the individual cannot reasonably be expected to do well on his own. National defense also includes defending one's vital strategic interests, by whatever means necessary. I suspect you have no idea to what point Western prosperity is built on oil. Our dependency on it is absolute and unlike anything before. So, yeah. Unless you're willing to go back to living Victorian-style, don't get all teary-eyed when folks don't protest their taxes being used to fuel the US war machine... you're getting a free ride, after all. You know what's really dreadful? People not knowing their history. Not knowing how much effort went into building what they now take for granted. Not knowing how much blood was spilled so they didn't have to worry about watching what they say or what they think. Not knowing that nothing is free. Not understanding the meaning of accountability, responsibility and confusing natural rights with contingent rights and other assorted socialist propaganda. In essence, not knowing what the flaming crap they are talking about. That is dreadful. So foster competence and that'll drive healthcare prices down. Why are you taking for granted that the only way to solve this is to force hardworking taxpayers to pay for everything? That's nice. I don't remember endorsing any contracts where it said that I have to take care of the lazy, the stupid or the cheating. I'd see about rescinding that contract if I were you.

People watch too much Star Trek.

Well, that's great. But the chump at 1600 Pennsylvania Av. may not be so clear on that. edit: wod beat me to it