Slashdot Mirror

For the people that think my post is a troll:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k...

Is the rumor that the firing was forced on Reddit by Jesse Jackson credible?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04...

Amazing how this sort of thing works.

> "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,"

It did no such thing. Emails and documents associated with Jonathan Gruber show clearly and unmistakably that this was NOT the case. The law was crafted with "lack of transparency" and the clear intent to try to force states to set up their own exchanges by threatening to withhold subsidies from buyers in states that failed to do so. That it failed to force most states to comply with this heavy-duty arm-twisting does not imply SCOTUS needs to charge in and "save" the law by imputing motives to Congress that were clearly never present. This is judicial activism, pure and simple, and impeachment proceedings to remove the guilty judges should be undertaken in response.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/14...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11...

You know, just a LITTLE honesty now and then from this administration would be very refreshing, do let's try to encourage them to be so, shall we?

The new "analysis" deliberately tampered with data for this very purpose:

I noticed that that article completely glosses over the inherent flaw in how the NOAA initially tried to compare pre-1998 temperature measurements from ships with post-1998 temperature measurements from ships and buoys. If you're willing to accept that the original data did, indeed, indicate a stall in the rise of average oceanic temperature measurements, then you must either be admitting that there was no stall (and are quibbling over the true extent of the rate of temperature rise), or you must be claiming that the introduction of buoys did not cause any statistical difference in average ocean temperature measurements. Which is it?

The new "analysis" deliberately tampered with data for this very purpose:

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

For all your "It never happens!" crap there are daily documented cases.

Show me the evidence. Cite me these "daily documented cases" of grandmothers and disabled people defending themselves with guns. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Well, wouldn't want to keep "Your Snarky-ness' waiting. Here you go. Google supplies many, many, many more.

Intruder shot by 73-year-old: http://www.cbs46.com/story/263...

84-year-old Richmond woman shoots intruder: http://abc7news.com/archive/79...

82-year-old woman kills 2 teens who broke into her home: http://news.aazah.com/content/...

'Not Here': 53-year-old woman shoots intruder: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07...

Yeah, go ahead, take away Grandma's only effective defense. Humoring your hoplophobia is much more important than Grandma's life, after all, right?

I don't typically resort to name-calling, but in this case I must call it like I see it and point out that you, Sir, are a moron.

Strat

Oh yeah, they are highly regulated, which leads a rational mind to believe that is why they are significantly rare in crime.

Bullshit. They're not rare in crime because they're highly regulated; they're rare in crime because they're the wrong tool for the job. After all, WTF does a criminal care if he breaks the law by carrying a "regulated" gun? He's planning to commit a bunch of other crimes anyway!

Moreover, when automatic weapons are the right tool for the job, then criminals will have them. The Mexican drug cartels, for example, recently shot down a helicopter with a goddamn RPG! I have no doubt that owning an RPG is illegal in Mexico, but do you think they gave a flying fuck?

Well the IPCC thinks warming has paused, but I guess you know more than they do.

The funny thing is, you fell right into the trap. Like the sun rising each morning, telling a warming alarmist there is any kind of pause brings about the same result every time. "yes it is" "here's a graph showing a steady rise".

Only you forgot one important thing - what is under discussion is NOT warming itself, but warming in relation to CO2 levels.

So the best you can do even hunting for the most data-twisted cherry-picked range you could find, was that there's an ongoing linear increase. Let's pretend that's true!

Your problem then is that it simply proves what I originally said - warming is unrelated to CO2 increases. The whole POINT of your ilk trying to scare everyone with CO2 is that it's supposed to trap heat and amplify warming levels. You show endless scary graphs about exponential increases in CO2 levels of the atmosphere...

OOPS. Because if CO2 is increasing exponentially, and has been for some time - why is there not an even GREATER increase in temperature, or anything even resembling the same increase? Instead it just chugs along at roughly whatever rate it was going, instead of reacting at all to CO2 spiking at all.

As I said, there's no reason to be afraid of CO2 because the Earth has a lot of systems built to deal with CO2. The warming we are seeing isn't looking to even be a problem for several generations, and there's no sign the upper limit is at all an issue - and as we know from historical data, a 2C rise in temperature (if we are that lucky) will lead to massive boosts in agriculture (which the CO2 rise only assists with).

Stop your fear peddling for just a moment and THINK.

Why bother lying about Gitmo? I mean, yes, it's useful as an extraterritorial prison, but attributing its continued existence to Obama is bizarrely counterfactual.

Obama issued orders to close Gitmo in 2009. Congress fought back with appropriations bills. The GOP has been and continues to be hugely critical and combative with Obama's attempts to close the detention camp. Romney was openly supportive of it, and a Republican Senator has said the Gitmo detainees can "rot in hell". Are you just completely ignorant of everything that has happened until this point, or are you arguing the President should just ignore the law, Congress, Republicans, and 53% of the country and close it anyway?

Replying as AC because I've already spent quite a few mod-points on this thread. My actual username is NicBenjamin.

It's actually quite difficult to win a race or gender discrimination suit. The salad days of the 70s, when you could have your statistician play with the numbers until there was only a 4% chance of you not being hired/promoted/etc. due to your race ended when Nixon started appointing segregationists to the Supreme Court. Same with gender.

Since Jurors have much more sympathy with people who look and act like them, white suburbanites frequently win suits:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08...
http://www.diversityinc.com/le...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2...

routine collection and analysis of fingerprints, iris scans, and facial images are helping to ferret out terrorists and immigration fraudsters [emphasis mine] all over the world

You don't say...

Gone are the days of entering a country with a false passport and wearing a wig and a mustache to hide your true identity.

Nonsense! James O'Keefe has crossed the border masquarading as Osama bin Laden. And thousands of serious "undocumented Americans" do that without even any attempts to disguise themselves — and do not encounter much molestation neither during nor after the act.

TFA tells us, the technology to fight it is there. Now we just need the will to use it — instead we currently have a will not to.

The "shutdown" was just a political stunt. The US government can never actually run out of money, because they can simply create more of it out of thin air. That is the entire purpose of fiat currency -- to fund the business of government through inflation, particularly the aspects of it that benefit nobody. They can wring their hands, puff up their feathers, and throw a tantrum as if the fate of their business is in jeopardy, but in the end, all they have to do is push the proverbial button. Poof -- the government is funded again and puttering along as smoothly as a racket possibly can.

A million times this. ^^^^^^

I wish everyone understood.

All you need to know is that among other stupid things, they "closed" the national World War 2 memorial to the public as part of the "shutdown". The WW2 memorial is basically an open park, so they actually spent money erecting temporary fences and posting security guards who actually arrested elderly veterans who occupied the park to protest this action. See here: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10...

Not only does 'Billary' avoid oversight with respect to government emails, but she also defended a rapist and insulted the victim:

Rapist

And people actually vote for her? How sad.

... I call BS on your report. Increased CO2 emissions are actually greening the planet.

"Daily Caller"? Okay, sure, lets ignore that for "greening" you also need more water and nutrients and go from the denialist distractoid to the real point: his "report" (which is more like a workplace safety bulletin) has nothing to do with plants, which you would have noticed if you had even carefully read what he wrote ("Some individuals" - only a dolt would think he's talking about plants).

So remind me why I even bother explaining this to you? You don't want any facts. You hate facts.

Both sides are not flouting their studies, only one side is. The other is looking at those studies and laughing that anyone took them seriously. Remember all the predictions about how rare snow would be and how clidren born after 2000 would grow up in a world where they never got to see snow? Remember Boston this year? Perhaps if one side didn't lie so blatently and often it wouldn't be ridiculed so much, but instead of stopping they just double down and make themselves look stupider. story

Just earlier this year I saw postings everywhere about how 2014 was the hottest year on record and that was absolute proof of global warming (18 years of cooling is weather, but 1 year of warming is climate according to them too). A week later it came out that NASA had only 38% certanity that 2014 was hotter by 0.024 degrees. How can they be only 38% sure? I thought this was settled science. Then I read another story about people researching past records that have been horribly manipulated to show global warming, blatenly fraudlently. But you guys are still quoting the liars, so I have to assume you stand to make money off the proposed regulation or you are just a stupid twit if you support them.

I can't really understand how things like what Phil Jones did can be ignored by people who shout "TRUE SCIENCE", when you have people deleting data to prevent peer review. Its just amazing how much the AGW supporters have to ignore now to keep thier views intact.

... I call BS on your report.
Increased CO2 emissions are actually greening the planet.

Dem Officials Admit: Obsession With Koch Brothers Lost Us The Midterms

This research clearly shows, the comments must be regulated — to ensure, only the certified experts are allowed to express opinions, and that all different points of view are fairly represented. The current so-called "freedom" is, obviously, putting us in danger — and it is over-rated anyway.

To keep the "playing field" level, the hitherto unregulated online news-sources (which also attract the most dangerous comments) shall be subjected to the same rules as TV-broadcasters, thus shutting down the smaller and annoyingly quirky ones among them. The respected (and, incidentally, government-supporting) establishments will thus be (smartly) helped.

Dissemination of information deemed incorrect by the benevolent and omniscient regulators, or failures to represent all points of view fairly, shall lead to the withdrawals of certification and any other licenses — easy to achieve without much fuss because a license, by definition is a permission granted by the Executive, and can be withdrawn (or not-renewed) without having to convince the skeptical Judiciary. Anybody talking about the First Amendment shall be ignored (and put on a watch-list) as a fringe crazy — this is not the 60-ies, you can not protest like that .

Regulation on slashdot hasn't worked for sometime now, though. The level of group think here is astounding. Every now and then I see a 10+ year old article on "This day on Slashdot" and notice just how much better the comments use to be on Slashdot compared to all the +5 insightful one-liners we get these days. Clearly, the mod system hasn't scaled well. Something new needs to be thought up.

This research clearly shows, the comments must be regulated — to ensure, only the certified experts are allowed to express opinions, and that all different points of view are fairly represented. The current so-called "freedom" is, obviously, putting us in danger — and it is over-rated anyway.

To keep the "playing field" level, the hitherto unregulated online news-sources (which also attract the most dangerous comments) shall be subjected to the same rules as TV-broadcasters, thus shutting down the smaller and annoyingly quirky ones among them. The respected (and, incidentally, government-supporting) establishments will thus be (smartly) helped.

Dissemination of information deemed incorrect by the benevolent and omniscient regulators, or failures to represent all points of view fairly, shall lead to the withdrawals of certification and any other licenses — easy to achieve without much fuss because a license, by definition is a permission granted by the Executive, and can be withdrawn (or not-renewed) without having to convince the skeptical Judiciary. Anybody talking about the First Amendment shall be ignored (and put on a watch-list) as a fringe crazy — this is not the 60-ies, you can not protest like that .

The Video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Jail for deniers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

Murder:
Comment by Bluecloud
https://twitter.com/RichardTol...
There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.

Death penalty:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.co...

You have it backwards. The teen in custody saved the cop's life

Who finances this 'prominent environmental think tank'?

Oil and gas lobby sues EPA over biofuel mandate

CREW seeks EPA docs to uncover undue oil lobbying pressure

You first.

Obama Administration REFUSES To Release Documents About White House Role in IRS Scandal

THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS: IRS Gave Taxpayer Information To White House

In 'Lost' Trove Of IRS Emails, 2,500 May Link White House To Confidential Taxpayer Data

There is plenty more digging to do, especially given the stalling by the administration.

You first.

Obama Administration REFUSES To Release Documents About White House Role in IRS Scandal

THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS: IRS Gave Taxpayer Information To White House

In 'Lost' Trove Of IRS Emails, 2,500 May Link White House To Confidential Taxpayer Data

There is plenty more digging to do, especially given the stalling by the administration.

you idiot.

they didn't falsely attack private citizens.
they weren't an attack tool of the DNC.
they ddnt lie to congress.

the entire IRS "scandal" was manufactured from whole cloth.

There seems to be a very large gap between your understanding of events and the facts. Here is a modest start for you.

IRS admits targeting conservatives for tax scrutiny in 2012 election

The IRS Scandal, Day 623

Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner reportedly pleaded with her supervisor not to deeply inquire about whether the IRS had unfairly targeted Tea Party and conservative groups for tax-exempt status just ahead of the 2012 presidential election, according to new emails obtained by a government watchdog group.

Joseph H. Grant, former Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division deputy director, was specifically asked by Lerner to refrain from visiting the tax agency's Cincinnati office and keep from asking specific questions related to any Congressional inquiries, according to emails obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit.

Lerner wanted to work for Obama activist group

Lois Lerner talked about working for Obama’s group Organizing for Action while she had official oversight over it

Freedom is *far* more at risk from our own governments than it ever was from terrorists.

Really? How many newspapers feel free to publish cartoons featuring Mohammed as a character? Is it the government that causes that fear? There has been a recent terrorist attack over this resulting in a dozen deaths, with more threatened. And that isn't the only problem from this vector.

Oxford University Press bans use of pig, sausage or pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
Salafist Muslim Group Forms 'Sharia Police' Patrol in Germany
Anti-gay, anti-alcohol: London's "Sharia patrol"
Swedish Police Release Extensive Report Detailing Control Of 55 ‘No-Go Zones’ By Muslim Criminal Gangs

Like most problems I'm sure this one will get better by simply ignoring it, or even better, pretending that measures to solve it are the cause of it.

Because terrorism is a red herring, and this looks like a shiny new power they can grab without much hassle from the rabble. Fear is a great vehicle for stripping away liberties.

Fear is a great vehicle? You mean like fear of government, the same governments that provide universal health care in Europe that everyone claims is the very height of civilization? So you can't trust government when it comes to stopping people with a demonstrated and announced desire to poison, shoot, or blow you up, but you can trust them to pump your body full of chemicals, with the power of life or death over you, to decide if you get food or water when you are too sick or weak to take care of yourself? Given the persistent confusion on these points this will probably not end well.

And your .sig? Pay attention to the bold: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Those that pay no heed to their security are unlikely to remain free.

GP never said anything about the US being a paragon of free speech protections.

Well, somebody should have said it — and I applaud you for saying it fairly well. Thank you.

The US is a paragon of free speech — not because there is no room for improvement, but because all (certainly most) other societies are worse in this regard. And though various Illiberals do come up from time to time with seductively-sounding proposals to ban "hate" speech, and even claim, the Constitution is outdated and "people can’t really protest like that anymore", the prevailing opinion remains, that any speech should be allowed and countered only with one's own speech.

Back to the question about UK, that country is certainly sliding farther away from liberty — along with the rest of the Western world. When a fatwa was issued calling for death of Salman Rushdie, for example, over his insulting Islam in an otherwise unremarkable book, the man received police protection and other support from his government. Nobody — except, maybe, that valiant Illiberal Jimmie Carter — blamed the victim for "deserving" the danger.

Years later, reaction to Mohammed-mocking cartoons is rather more mixed. And while it is still legal to burn American flag, if you decide to burn Koran, everybody from local to federal authorities will be on your case pressuring you to abandon your exercise of free speech.

Today, 10 years since that discussion, we are living through a 30 year low hurricane-frequency.

Well, that's certainly a reliable source. I'm surprised they didn't try to blame it on Obama...

But OK, so hurricane frequency is at a 30 year low in America. World-wide, hurricanes, cyclones, & similar category 3+ storms are at a 40+ year high.

They also cite a Nature editorial pointing out the same thing about extreme weather.

Extreme weather, huh? 10 years ago we were discussing right here, how continuing global warming will make hurricanes more frequent.

The usual suspects were writing "insightful" posts lamenting "deniers" and the sorry state of the uneducated populace preventing the sophisticated elite from saving the planet.

Today, 10 years since that discussion, we are living through a 30 year low hurricane-frequency — something, none of the "Global Warming" models predicted...

*facepalm*

Hurricane INTENSITY is projected to increase BY THE END OF THE CENTURY. That has nothing to do with hurricane FREQUENCY which is primarily driven by short term WEATHER patterns.

That being said hurricane frequency is projected to decrease in the Atlantic but increase in the Pacific OVER THE NEXT CENTURY. However, the dominate factor will still be the regional WEATHER patterns as they always have.

Reading comprehension is a good skill to have. Employ it and read the actual literature on the subject. Otherwise you just look stupid.

They also cite a Nature editorial pointing out the same thing about extreme weather.

Extreme weather, huh? 10 years ago we were discussing right here, how continuing global warming will make hurricanes more frequent.

The usual suspects were writing "insightful" posts lamenting "deniers" and the sorry state of the uneducated populace preventing the sophisticated elite from saving the planet.

Today, 10 years since that discussion, we are living through a 30 year low hurricane-frequency — something, none of the "Global Warming" models predicted...

What do you think, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" means?

To me it means, people should be armed so they can be ready to defend their free country.

In reading any document you have to look at the intent behind the wording, and their intent is pretty clear as the documents show.

Yeah, if we applied your principle to the First Amendment, the only "free speech" rights you'd have, would be to petition the government. And only for redress of grievances. (As well as only after registering, passing background checks, and only using means available in the 18th century — such as print or personal speech — but certainly not online or TV.)

no one really argues against the entire constitution

I certainly wish so, but that's just not true:

• Georgetown professor of Constitutional Law argues for abolishing the document
• And, of course, the Communists agree.

The primary argument — cited by all such "critics" — is that some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Presumably, they'd reject the Pythagorean theorem too, because the ancient mathematician was a slave-owner. And, for one more example, the Aristotle's Logic — on the same grounds...

Such is their hatred of the 2nd Amendment and limits on the government's power (when it is in Democratic control, of course), they don't realize, the 1st will be thrown out together with the 2nd.

But, perhaps more worryingly than these fringe loudmouths, is the calm dismissal of even the 1st Amendment by the boring bureaucrats of today: “This isn’t really the ’60s anymore [...] people can’t really protest like that anymore".

Your definition of monopoly is arbitrary, ultimately. My understanding of 19th century London was that it was filled with government-granted monopolies, and *that* is what made the public angry. I can't comment further until I do more reading on the issue.

As for AT&T, I'm referring to the beginning of the 20th century when many municipalities started granting AT&T monopolies, under the presumption of "natural monopoly." Of course, they ended up implementing some sort of price fixing, per the norm of regulating monopolies. My memory's fuzzy on the details, but the gist of what happened is that the prices may have been decent to start, but areas that didn't formalize a telco monopoly over time experienced much, much lower rates than AT&T. There has also been a habit of understanding the amount of competition, even with telco's; early 20th century telcos were no exception; apparently there was enough competition back then to make a noticeable difference. (Also, once again, the threat of competition is also very key. A single firm in a free market behaves differently than a single firm, as dictated by government.)

As for Comcast and other businesses that rely on leveraging very expensive infrastructure, the tendency is to invest massive amounts, then reap the benefits over time until more upgrades/investment must be done. If you look at Comcast's ROIC, you'll find that the annual reports are misleading. In essence, here's what's happening over several (let's say 5) years (arbitrary numbers):

• Year 1: Invest $500 million in infrastructure, spend $100 million on operational costs, earn $200 million in revenue
• Year 2: Invest $200 million in infrastructre, spend $100 million on operational costs, earn $205 million in revenue
• Year 3: Spend $100 million on operational costs, earn $210 million in revenue
• Year 4: Spend $100 million on operational costs, earn $215 million in revenue
• Year 5: Spend $100 million on operational costs, earn $220 million in revenue

If you look at years 3-5, it looks like Comcast is making massive returns, but once all of the years are summed up, a more accurate picture is revealed. After spending $1 billion dollars over 5 years, the net return is only $1.05 billion. Obviously these are made up figures, but it's a simplified representation of what does happen. This is an opinion piece, but it's laced with interesting statistics that verify what I've been saying (too lazy to look up the actual numbers myself): http://dailycaller.com/2013/02...

If Comcast's cable was really that much more profitable than the rest of their business, why in the world would they not dedicate more of their resources to cable? Simple: Because that's not the case and Comcast knows it. (I'm not saying their annual reports are inaccurate, only misleading by nature.)

Have you SEEN some of what goes on at campuses of many universities that is officially sanctioned and paid for by the university?

  A few creationists sitting off in a corner and chatting amongst each other is not even in the same universe of "harm" that is inflicted by so-called "Muslim Studies" and other professors at many tax payer funded universities.

One -- and just one -- case in point would be a few privileged white-male professors and privileged white students forming a racist lynch mob to make sure that the students at Rutgers wouldn't hear the words of the first Black Female secretary of state....

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05...

It is not that wind turbines aren't more dangerous than other sources, it is that they are dangerous to certain species such as bald eagles. Conservationists have even sued the government over it.

I doubt there's a person on this earth that's ever achieved their political goals without at some point having to sacrifice their principles to at least some degree.

Golden words. And it is especially true about Communists, who nowadays masquerade as "environmentalists". Like watermelons, they are green on the outside, but red inside.

Scratch a "green" activist, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Whether global warming is really happening (and it is already accepted, that we are living through a "pause" in it), if it helps sabotage Capitalism, it is a worthy cause.

And you'll notice, that these types — who also appear on every "anti-war" demonstration — would call themselves peaceful, non-violent, and opposed to "hatred". But, should they ever be allowed to perform their "revolution" (because Capitalism can't be reformed, you see), they'll all recall Che Guevara's

A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.

I just want to point out that all of your citations are from before the enrollment deadline. I think your latest post was from April.

They are all from april 3 or later. The only deadline they were before is the unofficial expansion Obama gave to april 15 because of the failures in the rollout.

How about something a little more recent?

Here is something a little more recent but the open enrollment window is lapsed so your emphasis of more recent is a but misleading.

In fact, if you follow the website attacks on Obamacare based on the number of people enrolled, you will find a deluge of articles leading up to April of 2014 and then...silence. You'll still find other attacks, but none based on the number of newly enrolled.

That is likely because the open enrollment window closed officially march 31 but was extended to april 15 or something like that for people who started to enroll but didn't finish on time because of the roll-out problems. I would assume the reason for a rash of articles discussing the coverage numbers would be relevant more around the time the enrollment window ended and not 5 months later when you have to either lose coverage otherwise obtained or turn a certain age requiring coverage.

Then, in May, you see a lot of articles saying, "Well, OK, a lot of people enrolled, but how many actually paid?". And then, based on insurance company data, it turned out that the people signing up for exchanges actually paid at a higher rate than the general population signing up for health insurance.

Yes, it is funny how people progress their questioning along the time lines of something in order to reflect the current timeline and complaints get brought up as they appear in the time lines. Go figure.

There are good reasons to criticize the ACA, but the number of people who have gotten coverage for the first time because of the law is not one of them.

Umm.. I never criticized the PPACA in these posts. I corrected a deluded person who didn't buy into reality. The numbers themselves seems to be what you think is criticism. I seriously think that any other president than Obama, and this entire situation would have had 10 times better of an outcome.

Here's how the war on poverty is doing: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09...

Thanks for the link, it has some numbers that show how relatively little NASA costs.

From the article:
  The government has spent some $22 trillion on means-tested welfare programs since the War on Poverty began (in constant 2012 dollars).
This does not include Social Security, Medicare, nor unemployment insurance.

All of NASA's spending since 1958 totals 790 billion (inflation adjusted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

This provides some data on the direct benefits of the space program:
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/eco...

Keep in mind that without the space program, there would be no DirectTV and we would be dependent upon Comcast.

Here's how the war on poverty is doing: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09...

Gain control? For what purpose?

For the same reason politicians become politicians (and policemen become pigs) — the feeling of control over fellow human beings gives them a high...

The way I see it, if this all bogus, we end up with cleaner air, less pollution and a better place to live.

Not obviously, actually. Tesla's wonderful batteries, for example, are a hell to make and aren't particularly easy to dispose of either. The early "green" toilets don't use enough water to do the job quite often — requiring multiple flushes, where an old one would've done with one. The mandatory recycling of this and that requires additional trucks on the road to haul the "special" refuse without clear benefits to the environment — in fact, often enough the stuff ends up in general refuse anyway after incurring all of the costs (financial and environmental) of the separate handling. The certified "green" buildings (sometimes?) use more energy, than regular structures...

You win either way.

Yeah. There is this line of thinking — Blaise Pascal, in his time, put forth the same idea on whether or not God exists.

Good to see, you aren't (any longer?) claiming it is the science, that drives your thinking about global warming... You aren't alone.

As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up.

Come on man, take your head out of the sand. There are recovered tweets and emails showing that Learner directly targeted the groups, there's even a possible link that Dick Durbin was involved as well. And of course we can't miss the part where she targeted a senator either.

Citation Provided thanks google A bit harder to find info on Quinn but I guess that's not really surprising considering the implications to "journalists".

Spend a million dollars, and astroturf the meme "evil republican congress people are trying to influence you with memes".

Back in reality-world:

http://www.freedomworks.org/co...‘one-nation’-just-liberal-astroturfing

http://mashable.com/2008/08/08...

http://lonelyconservative.com/...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02...

Ah, this is a lot more persuasive than your earlier attempt, but still not quite good enough... Citation needed much? (No, IPCC-produced documents don't count — members of the panel are government-appointed politicians, not scientists.)

Please, don't hate.

Read the IPCC reports

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are exactly the sort of people I was talking about — the ones, whose salaries and authority depend on Climate Change being a big deal. The conflict of interest is so glaringly obvious, it is comparable to the proverbial elephant in the room. They've been caught red-handed before.

The "reports" they produce are written by people appointed by governments. Few of them are scientists, and what few scientists there are seek not knowledge, but ways to confirm their pre-existing convictions — and when the data fails to do that, they "homogenize" it until it does... And though governments differ world-wide, they all have one thing in common: they are all convinced (often sincerely), that they "know better" and could "do good" if only they had more control over their subjects and their pretty little heads.

This is why you have never heard of any "green" measure, that would have reduced rather than increased the government's power over Individuals, have you?..

It's one they are granted when evidence is presented to a court for a warrant. In a public hearing.

That's not how things are spelled-out in the Constitution. And it does not make any sense. A public hearing will alert the suspect.

I'm pretty sure that the past decade has taught us that government does not respect this constitutional requirement.

No, we've known it for much longer.

So, they should get a time out from those powers until they can demonstrate that they know how to behave.

They are not children, to whom such an approach may be applicable. Nor will the criminals be willing to join the "cease-fire" you propose... Bad as government's intrusions into privacy are, they have neither killed nor raped many people.

Not even the scariest abuses — when police get a "hint" obtained with unwarranted search and perform "parallel reconstruction" — have targeted innocent people. Not yet. The time will surely arrive, but for the time being it is the IRS — not the NSA — that is used to suppress opposition. Them and the government's power to audit . But not the eavesdropping.

We have the Constitution, we just need the government to obey it. The previous President was often accused of "shredding" the document, but the current one is actually doing it.

In other words, we have the laws already — we just aren't following them. Creating new laws will not help that...

I would rather take my chances with the armies of terrorists and child molesters

How about fraudsters, thieves, rapists and murderers, embezzlers of public funds and bribe-takers? I don't think, I'm willing to have even a 10% higher rate of those things in exchange for unbeatable https.

Biometric identification is needed to reduce fraud. We all know how easy it is for one person to vote as many times as they want. There is no way to even estimate how much Medicaid recipient fraud costs. Biometrics certainly won't eliminate fraud in these and other places but it's a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately we're very unlikely to see any progress on this anytime soon. Even suggesting that a person should present identification when voting is met with howls of protest.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07...

Except when it is true or always?

Also, Don't forget we canceled our contracted email backup service. After the emails were lost... Which shouldn't be seen as suspicious in anyway or form.

This administration has had this same 'if you don't like it too bad' attitude since day 1.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06...