Scott_Connery

But that sounds so fun.

Use the sale of these assets along with all other un-needed government owned assets to pay off the debt the government acquired in the course of doing what it didn't need to do in the first place.

The government owes you more than it can ever pay. If it weren't for their meddling, a cure for your problem might already exist. If not for their taxation, you and your family could easily support you through your hardship. As long as you do not support statist politicians or policies, you are absolutely right to to take (or steal) whatever you can get from the government.

I suspect that construction, food, hotels, and drugs are just about the only industries that still exist from 500+ years ago.

I don't see how in-equality is intrinsicly bad. I am glad that I have an un-equal share of cancer for example. I am glad that not everyone has looks that equal mine.

Just hollywood stuff. I haven't seen anything else.

I love rich and long books. I love rich and long movies. I don't love long and shallow movies. I don't love slow and shallow movies. Most older movies that I have seen fall into one of those two categories.

I'm in as long as the two of us can find time to get to the range.

I consider almost all movies made before 1970 or so over-rated. I know some people love the "classics" but I find them terribly boring and slow paced. They seem simplisitic in every way. I just don't think movie making as an art was refined enough to be called good until the 1970s or later. This isn't to say that all movies made since then are good, just that almost everything made before then is bad. Dr. Strangelove is the only exception to that date that I have seen, and it was 1964.

I know that way back when, someone took a complete nuclear reactor aboard a B-36. The capabilities of a plane that could stay aloft for months at a time would be incredible.

Physics, economics, and a dash of watermelons blocking nuclear power plants.

However they do it, it is quite a show.

I've heard that they actually do fire the bullets, but with very little powder behind them. They have it calculated so that there is so little energy left after breaking the glass that the bullets barely make it at all. Thus it is a carefully calculated stunt, and not slight of hand. Its all third hand info from a half dozen or so people on a gun forum that I read that were the "volunteers"

Maybe the idea argument that not all Athiests are liberals, and not all Christians are conservative (whatever that means these days) would help him see the choice more clearly. Probably not, but I can't think of anything more likely to help.

The wikipedia article I linked to talks about how it was planned from the get go as a launch vehicle. It also talks about ways to mitigate radiation to quite manageable levels.

I know it sounds a little crazy, but with a big ship and little nukes, the jolts would be fairly managable. The upside is that nearly half of the crafts total launch weight ends up in orbit. With conventional chemical rockets the best you get is 3 or 4% of the start weight in orbit. This means that dollars per pound in orbit figure is drastically cheaper.

Yes there is a way to use a nuke without threatening anyone. The main proposed use (and the only currently available way to make space travel affordable) is nuclear powered space-craft. Project Orion

I thought it was fairly good. Not a philosophical masterpiece, but better than average of what I see in movies today. I thought Robert Downey Jr. was surprisingly good at his role.

If owls, or plastic snakes in the tress don't scare them away, I suggest you look into what is attracting them to the area so much. Is someone nearby putting out lots of food? If so, just about anything you do will be hopeless. For a more expensive alternative, you could put in more insulation in your roof and walls. Throw some good double pane windows for good measure. That should greatly reduce all sounds that you hear from the outside, and also cut your energy bills and raise your houses value. Well, that would work if you lived in a house and not an apartment.

By these standards, very few european children would be allowed anywhere near their parents.

I think presenting a healthy rational alternative to Abstinence could only help your niece. However, if word of the conversation reaches her parents (and it very well may) then it could cause a lot of problems between you and them.

But surely many other people have the same judgement, and so they will not want to buy my house. Therefore it will prove impossible to sell at the price it was previously valued at.

Well, let us say hypothetically that I bought I house next to a large empty lot. Some years down the road, a company builds a chemical weapons factory there. Now, my best judgement tells me not to live next to a chemical weapons plant, especially because I don't really know how to guage whether or not it is a safe one. This does not mean, that I don't think chemical plants should be outlawed, it is just an example that I think points out a gray area in your definition.

I'm not saying I agree with the theory. I'm just saying that I think the definition could be tightened up a little. I think it is arguable both ways (under your "act against your best judgement" rule) that being next door to a chemical weapons plant is a violation of your rights. It does not seem absurd to me that someone would be fearful of being in such an environment. Especially because knowing if the plant was genuinely safe might require a phd in chemistry. I think the definition needs to include something more akin to force, explicitly stated threat of force, or gross negligence likely to cause harm.

I'm not sure that is a good enough definition. It seems like there is still a gray area. I could see people arguing that ownership of many dangerous items could fit that definition of force.