Best way to get over a crush is to ask them out.

Two possible negative outcomes:

1- they say no, but are polite, means your out of your league.

2-they say no, but are rude, means you haven't wasted time being attracted to a piece of shit.

Single good outcome? They say yes.

So look at the odds of "cowboying up"

1 Good
2 Good, cuz they're bad
3 Bad, but you ACTUALLY TRIED. Nothing is worse than not knowing.

Muslims are already killing Americas on our soil while the Japanese interned were not killing Americans on our soil.

Why do we need 15 gov agencies ?

France keeps letting these not compatible citizens into its own country at its own peril.

Just say no to Muslims!

Only if it spreads evenly to the entire Florida aquifer instantly.
Local users will see a far less diluted effect than those, say, 300 miles away.
Because there's absolutely no method available to test the water until it's pumped to the surface for use, prudence demands you assume maximum contamination level until proven otherwise.
There's also absolutely no measure of the aquifer itself, how it moves, mixes, flows, etc. The system is mostly unmapped. That means it could (not will) stay in the local area and not be diluted much at all, or could go directly into the main body and be diluted 1000 times per day. There's no way to know until they test the aquifer itself, something they have no way to do at this point, they can only test what they draw off at individual wells, with no knowledge of how they're connected underground.

Also, let's be clear, the 250000000 number comes from the polluter, not some independent measurement. If history is a guide, we can expect that number to rise to > 10 times that amount when independent investigators look into it. (Think BP).

Even in the best case scenario, it's exposing the already short supply of fresh water to more toxins. Just because it might be below the level that would condem your home if found there doesn't make it 'safe' by any means. Radiation exposure is cumulative, low levels over a long time can be as dangerous as high levels over a short time.
IMO, your contention is comparative to me saying 'no problem that I'm putting arsenic in your water, I put in only 1/10 the lethal dose...and arsenic is found in nature, so no harm no foul'. You would still get sick, might die, and would likely have problems and stress the rest of your life. I could still be convicted of attempted murder, and rightly so. I get that this wasn't intentional, but it was foreseeable, so more like manslaughter I suppose....of >an entire county.

EDIT: And you didn't address the orange problem. An orange uses 53 liters of water, and it takes 13-15 oranges to make a liter of juice, for a cumulative dose of 742 times the contaminants if you drink a liter of OJ (based on the assumption that an orange will trap the contaminants, a reasonable assumption). Now, at 742 times the diluted dose, are you going to continue to drink Florida OJ? I'm not....and that sucks, I like OJ. Now I'm going to have to try to grow oranges here on the N coast of Cali if I want them....an impossibility. (although I did grow a pineapple here, another impossibility, so we'll see).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
I admit I was wrong about the 8% figure, I got the columns crossed, recalculating, it was about 11% in 22, 17% in 31, and 32% in 47. That still sounds like a pretty huge influx by my standards, almost tripling the per capita population in 25 years (and more than tripling the actual population) compared to others in the region, mostly by imigration.

You said they stood along side the Nazis " upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess" (I think you've edited what you originally stated, that they then stood along side the Nazis, and clarified what you meant, that the leaders that turned down the 47 proposal had stood with the Nazis in the past, which I don't disagree with...too bad I erased the quotation for space). The U.N. mandated a two state solution in 74...in 47, they 'mandated' a 3 state solution that took massive territories from the Palestinians and handed it to Jewish immigrants, it turns out the Palestinians should have accepted because they've lost far more since then, but it sounded terrible at the time.

What points? Are these universal points? Can I redeem them for trips to the store by the universe...it owes me some milk.

In 48, when the illegal immigrants became land thieving invaders, the U.N.partition plan was to split the territory 3 ways, and for the U.N. to control Jerusalem. It would be like the U.N. agreeing today with illegal Mexicans in Texas and California that the southern 1/2 of all border states was now a new country because they are now a majority in many areas, with the U.N. taking control of the LA basin....we might say "no thanks" like the Palestinians did...at least I hope so.

The 37 British plan for Partition came before 47.
WIKI-The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

You said they stood with the Nazis when the two state solution was proposed...which was actually 74, but I'll give you leeway and say you meant 47, which is still ridiculous, the Nazis were long gone in 47.

They didn't seize it as payback for the holocaust, but many allies went along, seemingly out of guilt for not stopping it sooner (a valid complaint about the US, but no reason to help take Palestinian territory and hand it away).

Yes, there was Jewish hatred in Europe before the Nazis, that's one reason why they were able to grab so much power, they had a ready made scape goat. Your point?

No, not every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist, but enough of the 11% were that they tripled their presence in 25 years....and far more importantly, today it's near 100%, and they are violent, expansionist, ruthlessly inhuman, and zealous.

I refuse to call it a civil war when one side was made nearly completely of immigrants....that's called an invasion.

I do agree, the inability to assimilate is not 100% the immigrants fault, but it is 100% their responsibility. Refugees, that are not expected to stay, so not expected to assimilate, are kept in camps. These people did not go to camps, so they were, at best, illegal immigrants, and many were coming with the goal of stealing inhabited territory for their own, which makes them invaders. The VAST majority of them came after the war ended, so could not be war refugees. During the war, Jews had an incredibly hard time traveling in Europe.

The few actual refugees there that the axis created were absorbable by the Palestinians. It's their multitudinous militant expansionist friends that continue to immigrate there to this day that are the problem, IMO. I'll continue to call them violent invaders, you've said nothing to convince me otherwise.

Says no one! ever!

If anyone ever says "no" to the question "is there any evidence that could change your mind on this", they should not only be disqualified from running for political office, they should be disqualified from voting, teaching, procreating and possibly also breathing.

*Canadian currency on the bar says no...

We put up signs saying "no skinny dipping", but this guy just jumped right on in totally bear.

"Say no to drugs." --Nancy Regan

You seem to imagine that the "chaos" that a Trump presidency would be confined to the American political arena. It would not. You can be certain that another world wide recession/depression would follow his election, before he's even in office. Financial markets hate uncertainty, and he is the embodiment of uncertainty. That chaos would not go unnoticed by anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, nor would it be the only chaos he would incite.
I defy you to show one case in history when a power grasping fascist demagogue seizing the reigns of power has ever led to a net positive outcome.

You also seem to not know or care that Trump has been sued 3500 times in the last decades, has likely broken as many or more federal laws than Clinton, brutalizes women personally (that's what it's called when you take a non-citizen wife because she can't say "no" to you, and it's what it's called when you steal from people because you don't pay your bills or fulfil your contracts, causing hundreds of businesses to fail, some owned by women), is a consummate con man, a bully, an idiot, is incredibly gullible and naïve, is incredibly thin skinned, is hyper reactionary, and is a narcissistic demagogue. I say you either don't know or care because you implied he is "better" than Clinton in these areas, which you could only claim because you are either 1) completely naïve on the subject 2) willfully blind to his innumerable faults or 3) intentionally misleading and misguided. Your choice.

No idea, but given the video shows both sides of the brain reading text, I'm inclined to say no.

Please stop pretending the entire farming industry practices the worst possible practices. It's not true and you know it. Yes, those practices do happen, but there are alternatives where the animals enjoy better than natural lives under the care of their farmers. It's analogous to saying no one should have dogs because puppy mills are horrendous places that should be eradicated.
My eggs come from free range chickens with windows in their roomy coop, and they never get turned into meat when they stop laying, nor do male chicks get chipper shredded.
Egg laying hens and milk cows do not get turned into meat for human consumption.
Many dairy farms do not practice ANY of the methods you claim.

If you call all farmers murderers and torturers, and all their customers accomplices, you have called all non vegans murderers and torturers.

Go to the butcher.
Inuit eat meat because it's all they have. Same with many Maasi, who survive on milk and blood from their cattle with no other resource to exploit. Pretty damn good and logical reason IMO, not starving.
I'm waiting on that video.

Then I misunderstood, I thought you were saying no one on the planet HAS to eat meat by necessity and likely never will, so I pointed out two large groups that historically have and do eat ONLY meat.
I nit pick because when people make public blanket statements that are false, they need to be corrected.

I get your point, but I think it should be 'Procedure A will cost you $______....assuming there are no complications."
I actually must disagree about your analogy of the car...because it is like taking your car to a shop but not knowing exactly what's wrong...chances are the price they quote for the service they THINK will solve the problem won't be the final price because they're just guessing at what they'll have to do...they can't KNOW there won't be rusted bolts or other damage that's only visible after taking the timing cover off. That said, they CAN give you a quote for taking the timing cover off, and if pressed, for replacing the cracked block if that's behind it. Hospitals absolutely refuse to estimate, or to give a solid price for a specific service. I think that's the big problem, as it allows them to charge you one price and me another, and insurance another, Medicare another, etc. It's the floating price scheme that's unconscionable, especially for services that are life and death when you can't say "no thanks". It allows them to 'serve' you THEN tell you the aspirin they gave you costs $800. That's unfair by any reasoning.

This I fully agree with.

I would go a little bit further and say no package should last more than 2 months without breaking down.

We also need faster biodegradable packaging.