Actually it’s both. The final forms aren’t stable in the real world, they shed particles that are ingested, vapors inhaled, who knows, they are likely absorbed through the skin from many products.

Assume they aren’t actually toxic, functioning as designed they coat digestive systems and, if the report is to be believed, individual cells in extreme cases, leading to things like digestive issues and vaccinations not working. In developing children, it sounds disastrous…and it’s everywhere and in everyone….often in high levels.

This is akin to a crop that’s mildly toxic, not one adjacent to a pre existing separate toxic weed. You can’t plant this crop without permanently contaminating the field, and adjacent fields, and the local water sources, and to lesser extent anyone who uses the crop. There’s no separate toxic weed here, just a toxic crop we keep planting in new places, making the contamination much much more widespread at constantly increasing levels with no way to clean it up and little knowledge of the long term effects of such contamination. Pretty big gamble to take with the entire planet just so your thin rain coat doesn’t leak, don’t you think? Especially with a non biodegradable easily spread but impossible to remove toxic chemical with relatively unknown cumulative effects and no method whatsoever for removing it from people or the environment….like this one.

fucking up "ghost in the shell" as a movie nerd talking about the matrix is a pretty big fuck up.

I'm saying his love for his family and friends is what he is afraid of losing. That's a pretty big problem. How he handles it depends on if he gets burnt. Maybe it's too big of a leap for him, I don't know.

All I do know is, there is a glimmer of hope with him.

Edit:

I don't advocate lying. That is his choice. The only thing that may change him will be his lies coming back on him. I say, "Let it be. Speaking words of wisdom, Let it be."

For a 9 month employment, getting the start year and end year wrong by one year each, and not mentioning the true start date was late December, that's a pretty big lie to start with.

I've heard nothing of this alleged Larry King call....link? No recording, or any details that don't match her first iteration of this constantly morphing story? ...don't bother mentioning it or it just sounds like desperation.

Um....1) Ford had written contemporaneous notes about her attack.
2) Ford's FIRST HAND WITNESSES, not people she told a story years later, were mostly NOT HEARD, AND WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

Yes, the double standard is quite conspicuous....but it's the Right's blatant double standard.

One likely attack with a credible professional accuser, multiple first hand witnesses unheard and contemporary evidence is ignored and denied even a full hearing, and one changing accusation of a totally unbelievable public attack in the halls of congress made by a non credible accuser with no witnesses, no evidence, and who never brought up her attack before even though her attacker has had constant elections for high office including VP twice...even when she was part of a group making other public accusations against the same man, her accusations are to be believed?!

You really have some nerve implying the double standard comes from the Left here. Such bullshit.

MAYBE she exaggerates?!? There's no MAYBE about it. Everything about her claims scream political lie from a proven liar. I can't fathom why anyone ever listened to her unbelievable story except out of desperation, needing so badly to have a Biden abuse story to counter Trump's decades long history of real abuses, both on tape and bragged about in multiple interviews like forcing his way into dressing rooms at his beauty pageants to ogle underage girls as they dress, trying hard to Fuck his friend's wives while he's married, forcibly finger banging any woman he finds attractive, all the way to multiple rape cases in court now.

Oh yeah, thanks, that totally explains why gun violence, violent crime, and non-violent crime are all way higher in Canada than the US.

Oh, no... did I get that backwards? I guess all your gibberish just doesn't play out in the real world, huh?

TWICE in recent weeks, the NRA's wet-dream-come-true, the "good guy with a gun" was on the scene and got shot and killed BY THE POLICE because they saw a guy with a gun and just shot. That's a pretty big fucking hole in your theory, isn't it? I mean aside from the fact that reality simply doesn't jibe with your theory.

But I guess you'll go do what your type always does when a theory doesn't match the real world. Call "Fake News!" and pretend you're right no matter what happens.

You may need a pretty big Wok.

To be fair, I'm not actually sure what the right move would be even with the outside perspective and unlimited time to think about it. Maybe the best thing is to keep it rolling, point it somewhere safe and jump. Maybe stop immediately (assuming the brakes still work) and run the hell away. Also, that's a pretty big, very hot looking, thick-black-smoke belching fire. The driver might already not be in a condition to do anything.

I'm a pretty big fan of Tool, and Maynard (singer for Tool, APC, and Puscifer). Weird / eccentric, but very deep and meaningful. I've been waiting for a new Tool album for a long time, but this one from APC wasn't really on my radar in advance even though I like other albums of theirs also. Then these singles hit, and they grabbed me right away.

The full impact takes longer to absorb, for me at least, with Maynard's songs. Usually I don't pay much attention to lyrics, but he always puts a lot of depth and breadth in. I guess I might think that was pretentious with other bands/artists, but seems like he really enjoys hearing different listeners take away different messages without one/his being "correct".

Glad you enjoyed them also!

Beach guy has some pretty big balls to walk under that

Mental health is a pretty big issue that is connected. So are socio-economic issues. There is a bigger puzzle of which access to firearms is only the last piece.

I don't think anyone should expect the NRA to address mental health. This is not their mandate. They exist to champion firearm rights. Mental health or other issues are some other lobby group or the general population's responsibility.

The Australian and New Zealand law changes show that restricting the types of firearm, caliber, and magazine capacities has little to no effect. There are multiple studies (the majority in fact) concluding that the draconian Australian laws didn't even affect the homicide by firearm rate.

Typical liberal trying to twist and combine facts. You are coming off like a pretty big moron. You cant compare Haiti and PR as its a apple/orange situation. Do you know the situation of the infrastructure between the 2? Do you know how the government of each nation reacted? I bet there's a lot of difference between the two.

Also, you dont know how much damage is going to be caused by a hurricane. Why would they ramp up all the services and waste tens of millions of dollars when just a street sign gets blown over? (besides you liberals would then complain about wasting government money for nothing) They knew Katrina and Andrews were coming too but the US government has to wait to see if they are needed.

Also, federal agencies like FEMA have to be requested by the local governments to be there. This is where you guys are such hypocrites. If the military moved into a location and started to take over, you'd be all up in arms about it. Well, FEMA is a federal entity too. They just cant GO into a location if they arent being requested.

As far as the San Juan mayor, here's an article from Oct 1st:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21758/san-juan-mayor-admits-she-hasnt-met-federal-joseph-curl#exit-modal

I bet even with this smoking gun in this incompetent Mayor, who is a Democrat, that you are still going to blame Trump. You people are so sad.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

"Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated."

Really? Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis (hell, there's practically one in the white house). So no, they weren't ultimately defeated.

"When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint"

Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them. No-one here supports Nazis, but they do have a right to speak, even if what they have to say is abhorrent.

Of course, they don't have a right to be listened to, and we have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

"I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. "

The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs.

I will grant you that if the Nazis ever get into power, an armed resistance would be moral. But there is a world of difference between expressing a thought (no matter how vile) and committing an action.

There's a pretty big gap between dumb as a sack of hammers nonsense like Big Bang and 2.5 men (both created by the same guy, I think) and something like It's Always Sunny or Breaking Bad.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike Breading Bad or It's Always Sunny (I thought BB was great, but It's Always Sunny never really grabbed me), just that they're not really in the same category.

It's just kinda like saying "I don't really like pop music. I don't like Lady Gaga; she's like Katy Perry or Pink Floyd. And I tried to get into Led Zeppelin, but the first album sucked".

That's a pretty big cabin for a cargo ship. Also, you could make a pretty cool music video with a big enough room and the right waves.