Which will inevitably lead to more accusations of bias.

Not when it’s demonstrably the greatest time to be alive as a human being.

It’s a book signing and the person was being disruptive while the invitee was speaking. Nothing particularly sinister about this.

“Putting a few hundred dollars between me and a gun”

Something something guillotines something something vague threat.

For sale.

Costs always go down, and 3d printing will be no exception. Given the number of legitimate uses for them, I don’t think it would be feasible to track their purchase and use. Tracking the files themselves is going to be like tracking movies and games accross peer-sharing services, except the file sizes will be smaller…

No shit, but I’m talking about HOW you prevent it.

From a practicality standpoint, I’m having a tough time differentiating this from trying to prevent movie and video game piracy.

I understand the focus on high-cost treatments of deadly diseases, and I appreciate the emotional toll, but I wonder if the path to a national healthcare solution isn’t better served by focusing first on routine check-ups and preventative medicine. Costs for this seem like they are both lower and more predictable, and…

I’m not a socialist by any means, but I’m game for the socialist takeover of the Democratic party: it would promote an honest and straighforward discussion of the country’s direction. Hillary’s coronation as the Dem candidate prevented what could have been a very important contest between capitalism and socialism that…

Is this your first HamNo article?

There seems to be a lot of grey area here. How do we determine when violent suppression is justified?

What is the purpose of discriminating against the intolerant if their viewpoint is not wrong and dangerous? Is intolerance “right and safe” then?

So how is that violence employed? What are the laws and rules around it? Who determines what views may be suppressed?

Hypotheticals are usually predicated with something like “if”

That was a hypothetical you nit-wit. Of course the US isn’t majority anti-gay.

So you’re OK with being intolerant of 1/4 of the country.

Tell me about the paradox of tolerance in a nation that is predominantly anti-gay, and feels that their LGBT citizens are willfully ignoring their respectful explanations that their lifestyle is sinful and healthy. Are they justified in oppressing these individuals?

OK, but how many people are we not tolerating here? Like, every Republican basically? You’re intolerant of a 1/3 to 1/2 of the country.