quantumBerry

28 ms·

211.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? I guess she didn't think of my misery every time she gets in her car and drives somewhere unnecessary like a restaurant or gym to enjoy her life. Why would
212.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
> Neither. You should consider other people for a change. And your hypocritical argument is on the selfish belief that you believe society owes you something (supporting your healthcare) when you make a mistake. That is your argument not
213.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
So which are you arguing against, public healthcare or the mandates that hospitals admit emergency patients regardless of ability to pay?
214.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Ignorance apparently is wearing a seatbelt because of your own personal decisions and risk analysis instead of some nitwit with a badge and a gun threatening to take what you've rightfully earned.
215.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>Should seatbelts be a personal choice too? Do they infringe on your "liberty"? Yes and Yes. Now you get it.
216.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
I think it is possible, but not if anything goes wrong. For instance, I used to live off of ~300 / month in the US by living mostly in forest. However, after having a kid my wife demanded regular housing. I could divorce her and go w
217.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>2nd only concerns tyranny The 2A was written with tyranny in mind but the 2A does not mention tyranny. It recognizes militia, recognizes security of free state (which can come from foreign sources), and the right of the people to keep
218.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
So which people are allowed to peaceably assemble? How about my wife and I? What if we also want to bear arms? Having the ability to defend against tyranny with a weapon doesn't mean you drop your right to self defense. The 2nd amen
219.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>Only gun nutters believe the source of their right to self-defense comes from the 2nd, while the rest of us have that right whether there is a 2nd Amendment or not. Arms are ubiquitous in modern times and the second amendment enshrines
220.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>Prior to 2008 most Americans did not believe the 2nd included an implicit right of self-defense Only gun nutters believe in the right to self defense? Who has the right to keep and bear arms? Does the constitution say that the "ri
221.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>Easily half the states demonstrated that they could not be trusted to run their own affairs and protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution. So instead we have a more centralized federal government that cannot be tr
222.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Power centralization is rarely predicated on reasons that include the benefit of common man. The US doesn't appear much different in that regard, either.
223.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Average vehicles have only grown in footprint by about 4% since 2008. Weight is <10% heavier than when EPA began tracking it in 1975. [1] Most of the weight shedding after 1975 happened in the 1980s in the immediate wake of peak oil pri
224.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
The other half of this is the chicken tax. Internationally, small trucks are widely available. However the tariffs make it much more difficult for the market to bear the sale of these small trucks (vs domestic mid-size truck or imported s
225.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
> This is a false equivalency. This is a false statement. Unless you are oblivious to the current regulations, and the fact that one must remove (deregulate) CAFE as it stands before small trucks are economically feasible.
226.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
CAFE standards (regulations) are the reason why trucks are so large. Fuel efficiency standards are based on the size of vehicle, so a bigger vehicle allows for more fuel consumption and thus a more practical to build vehicle while still me
227.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
It isn't a free lunch, because the $300 is going towards the start-up cost of the future tax-base. The cost to raise a child is estimated to be about $250,000, and the average amount a person will pay in taxes is $340,000. By my calcul
228.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
I want to preface saying I do not believe in taxes, nor the child tax credit. And that I think both the child tax credit and unemployment (other than voluntarily unemployment insurance) are essentially armed robbery. But it is asinine to
229.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
What country are you employed in? In the US you have the choice to work for an employer who does not provide paid parental leave. It is not mandated. So you have no cause for outrage, if your coworkers are taking leave you literally cons
230.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
So are you both infertile and unable to adopt? What is stopping you from being eligible for parental leave? It's absurd to claim taking care of a sick family member isn't a conscious decision. Have you ever slept walked your way
231.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>a conscious decision with negative externalities. So bereavement should be declined if the dead made a conscious decision for suicide, and sick days should be banned if the person say made a conscious decision to take care of a family m
232.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Are you proposing that it is possible to travel by land from South America to USA without entering Mexico? Or perhaps the impoverished South Americans are buying yachts and tourist visas to bypass Mexico?