Raider5678

Yes. You experienced the common phenomenon where you feel it, but don't sneeze.

You seem to have an assortment of medical problems. For this one, if you're concerned or it affected your hearing, I'd see a doctor. If nothing happened, I don't think you'd know if a hair actually snapped.

I doubt it, but there could be ample ability also. PBA has to do with brain damage or neurological disorders. The hormone imbalance that could cause growing of breasts in men may also have neurological side effects. But I don't think it would be related to PBA.

Well. It's a law that doesn't exist. And most of the citations are from things like forums and such where nobody can find the law prohibiting it. But here's a few of the forums. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-law-in-the-US-prohibiting-private-citizens-from-owning-nuclear-weapons https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/2t2n78/is_it_illegal_for_individual_americans_to_own/ http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=260139 Somebody on there says it's illegal to own radioactive materials. That's not true. There's severe regulation, but not illegal if you have the proper safety precautions. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The NRC is the Federal agency responsible protecting the health and safety of the public and the environment by licensing and regulating the civilian uses of the following radioactive materials: Source material (uranium and thorium) Special nuclear material (enriched uranium and plutonium) Byproduct material (material that is made radioactive in a reactor, and residue from the milling of uranium and thorium) The NRC regulates the use of these radioactive materials through Title 10, Part 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," which spells out the agency's requirements for the following aspects of radiation protection: Dose limits for radiation workers and members of the public Exposure limits for individual radionuclides Monitoring and labeling radioactive materials Posting signs in and around radiation areas Reporting the theft or loss of radioactive material Penalties for not complying with NRC regulations Of more than 20,000 active source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials licenses in place in the United States, about a quarter are administered by the NRC, while the rest are administered by 37 Agreement States.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Seems to me it's saying you can over throw it should it become tyrannical. And I know, somebody is going to argue that it doesn't explicitly say "Over throw" but instead "Abolish." I'll comment on this. If the government is tyrannical, do you really think it would just step aside while you told them they were no longer in charge? I doubt it. So fighting would go down. And if the people had no weapons, it diminishes their ability to do this at any time. While I'm not saying that our current government is tyrannical(stupid and racist, yes, but not yet a dictator), it could one day become tyrannical. As with all governments. At that time, if we no longer have guns because our right to own them was taken away(another thing I doubt will happen), it'd be much harder to over throw the government. And I know what you're saying. "The American people could never defeat the military!" But clocking out at the idea of 35%(there was a study that came up with this number) of 330,000,000 people owning guns, that's 115,000,000 people with guns. That's a hard number of people to suppress. Additionally, other countries might join in too. All depends. But regardless, people owning guns gives the people power against their government. In that time, the State's were not all one government. They were all separate, under the rule of the union. Because the second amendment gave us the right to bear arms. Not to carry around an inter continental ballistic missile. Wait. I looked it up. You can own a nuke legally inside the united states. You just have to pass all the safety standards, and there's nobody that's going to give you an instruction manual to build it. It'd also amount to hundreds of billions of dollars to make the storage area, getting the material, development, etc. On top of that, it'd also add on another few hundred billion to be able to launch it any where. Note, the richest man on earth has $79.2 billion dollars. The united states spent $80 billion on just the PLANES to carry nukes. With enough money, you can own just about any weapon.

LMGTFY https://www.nuedexta.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwyZjKBRDu--WG9ayT_ZEBEiQApZBFuOsKdWiYdnO8N7zPT2kO8QAwQYHBUF8DPoEugnkMT1oaAmVm8P8HAQ

Why? Worried they're watching you?

I assumed speed of them orbiting?

That is disturbing....

No. But who said she's a role model.

Eagle.

I believe it has to do more with the cultural side of things. In most cultures if a bloke hurts himself, they tell him to tough it out and live with it. If a woman gets hurt, they're taken care of. This starts at a young age. But I don't believe it's evolutionary. Both male and female should have the same pain tolerance at birth, unless I'm wrong.

It's a quote. He wasn't making an argument about anything. Most likely he just look up random quotes until he found one he liked, and then he put it in. When putting a quote into the back of a book, that the author likes, even if the intention of said quote is QUESTIONABLE, as well as the MEANING, gets a bunch of people upset that it's "religious" or "unfairly representing one side of the argument", it seems pathetic. I'm being honest there buddy. You mean we should impeach our president for saying something good to America? Alright. Maybe we should elect one that says "America is full of a bunch of idiots who will vote for an orange monkey!" Oh wait. We did. It is possible for religious leaders to perform a legal marriage. But it is NOT a violation of the separation of church and state, because the state already REQUIRES religious leaders to have a licence to teach their religion. Which, by the way, is a violation of the separation of church and state. Now personally, I don't agree with separation of church and state. But if you're gonna say religious people shouldn't be allowed to do a marriage because of that law, then they should also not need a licence to practice their religion. I do believe in the impartiality of the state(favors no religion) though. I see no reason why a kid reading a bible in class has to be screamed at by the teacher for forcing his religion down every bodies throats.(It happens in schools. Although, I have yet to find a rule saying we can't read a bible in class.)

And again. Tell us what our religion actually means. How about when they tried to uphold the law where you "kill people" and Jesus(mind you, the deity. So what he says goes in this religion) said to forgive rather then to kill. Apparently. According to you. There is no difference here. That is arrogance.

I talk to myself in my head all the time. Sometimes I'll even look up to see if someone was talking to me.

Agreed. A Utopia, means people stop trying to improve. And since no Utopia is perfect, eventually something will come to wreck the party. Be it another country, mother nature, or something else.

Well. They can at least try to say "Don't murder people."

Unless you have some proof otherwise that the majority of Christians are killing anyone who disobeys them, I suggest you believe my "arrogant" belief that the majority of Christians do not kill anyone who disobeys them. The GENERAL interpretation, that the majority of Christians believe. You aren't even of the religion. So unless you can tell me more accurately what they believe, why are you arguing against this? It's not far fetched at all. I'm willing to say, arrogance and all, that more then 50% of Christians will not actually cut out their eye. That more then 50% do not actually kill their children. If you disagree, you should do some research. Additionally, who said that was my churches interpretation? Again. That is generally how most denominations interpret that piece of scripture. Some would disagree. But that would be equivalent to me pointing to atheists who believe that religious people should be executed(I know one) and saying that there are many different kinds of atheists, and that it's arrogant to say that you have the correct atheist view. It shows no understanding of the basic principles of atheism, it's wrong, and it's also contradictory.

Perhaps he just wanted to put a statement inside that promotes humans exploring the universe? Honestly, I don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist over this. Who cares if it's religious? Did you write the book? And does it really change all that much? I kinda doubt you're gonna suddenly start questioning everything you learned because there was a quote in the back that may/may not be religious. Just my opinion man.

My "arrogance" and "definitive authority" on the meaning of the bible, is what the majority of Christianity believe. To suggest that you can tell other people in other religions what their own spiritual text means without being a part of it is astounding. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

How do you explain ambition and greed? Racism and religiousness?

Obviously you've never heard of a hyperbole. Except in Christianity, you're not suppose to kill them. That means more that Jesus came to change how they went about the law. Deciding who could be judged, and how, etc. But he kept the same basic principles of "don't do this. And definitely don't do that." He is still fulfilling the law. Because the law isn't the punishments, it's the rules. Throughout the New Testament, he fulfills the rules. But rather then judging, condemning, or killing sinners, he helped them and encouraged them to sin no more. Still upholding the law. But now he fulfills it. Because rather then killing people who broke the law, he forgives them and tries to get them to stop. Then he died for them. You took it wrong. That's true. But going to a church doesn't matter. It's how you are as a person.