Rivalarrival

My generation's retirement account:

I don't think you're understanding me. I'll see if I can rephrase.

There is no "jail them for life" option without the law. If you try to imprison them without the law, the law will just come in and free them. You're suggesting a middle option that is simply not feasible.

I'm asking you to choose between:

• "Guillotine Party", a political party, much like the Tea Party, dedicated to stripping the problem-class of their excessive political power, perhaps by creating laws to justify their permanent imprisonment. We politically, figuratively decapitate them. This approach can (theoretically) jail them for life, by creating the law that would allow it to happen.

• "guillotine party", where we solve the problem-class in much the same way that 18th century France solved their aristocracy problem. We literally decapitate them. This approach will not jail them for life; this approach will execute them for anti-revolutionary activities.

While the specific details will vary wildly, these are the only two general options we have available to us to effect reform: politics, or force.

No, actually, it doesn't make you liable for manslaughter. It probably doesn't even rise to the level of civil liability for wrongful death. They are compliant with the law, and they make sure of that by having their lawyers write the laws. The "anyone involved in the deaths" includes the deceased themselves, who is determined to bear primary responsibility.

We can override the laws they are writing (Guillotine Party) or we can suspend the laws to hold them accountable (guillotine party). But jailing them without a conviction just isn't feasible.

You hold the pencil and twirl the cassette around on it.

I think OP used literally correctly here.

Then you do not understand what the word "literally" literally means.

While several treatments would work for either, (such as carving up the offending subject with a knife, or sufficient application of chemical or radiative agents), billionaires are an economic problem, not a biologic one.

There is no law providing for such a sentence, so what you are talking about is either "make billionaireism illegal" or "extrajudicial punishment". In the case of the former, we need a Guillotine Party to take over the DNC much like the Tea Party took over the GOP. Or, we need a guillotine party, French Revolution style, to resolve the problem-class at its source.

Freshwater fish can still have mercury. Even farmed fish can have mercury contamination, if their feed is sourced from the wild.

If you won't eat fish though that sounds more like a you problem.

Nah, I'm perfectly happy with my hot dogs. You're the one eating broken thermometers and fluorescent lights.

The alternative interpretation is that the second driver was doing 50, and honked at the first driver when they passed doing 70.

Fish are carnivorous, and mercury is bioaccumulative. So, larger fish tend to have higher concentrations than smaller fish, but pretty much all fish have some level of mercury. There is no "safe" concentration.

But the real problem with your scenario is that I'd prefer hunger pangs over fish, grilled or otherwise.

Parent comment discussed "anxiety", a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.

Mercury.

Welfare isn't assistance to the poor. Welfare in the US is those efforts specifically designed to denigrate and humiliate the poor.

Means testing increases costs and decreases effectiveness and should not be included in these programs. But it always is.

We need to start thinking of ourselves as "shareholders". We invest our individual political authority in out government, who uses that authority to provide essential services to business and individual customer, while charging for those services via taxation. Without the political authority of the citizenry, they would have no ability to provide those services.

We are each individually owed a return on our investment, separate and apart from any of the services we receive from the government. UBI should be thought of as a citizenship dividend, owed to the "shareholders" of government. It is not "charity".