Slashdot Mirror

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?

No.*

Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.

Yes.

* No. Citizen's United v. FCC (assuming that's what you're talking about) in 2007 is often misrepresented and there's a lot of misinformation about the case and the ruling. As I'm unable to guess what you believe to be true (but can infer that you don't actually understand the case or the ruling), all I can do is suggest that you take a few minutes to get to understand it. It's one of those things that people seem keen on lying about and lots of people don't bother actually doing the research themselves. Instead of looking, they just believe what they're told. Why they'd want to listen to people frothing at the mouth and with a history of dishonesty is beyond me.

If you're actually curious, you can do some reading at Wikipedia. I've not bothered reading the article but, if it's like many others, I'd use it as a jump-off point and then find some more information. It's a little complicated but it's not terribly difficult to get the gist. However, I can assure you that it doesn't actually "make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose." No, not even remotely.

Actually, I've got a free minute or ten. Let me see what I can find that's actually readable and accurate.

First the Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is objective and appears to be factual: http://missoulian.com/news/opi...
*ALL* the information: http://www.scotusblog.com/case...

The second link is probably the better of the two, for simple layman's understanding, and then the Wiki is "fine" for a good read for more information. However, if you really want the meat of the ruling then the final link is ideal. That link has lots of other links to read the ruling, amicus briefs, opinions from the courts, the actual documents, and things like that. It's a lot to digest, I've actually read some of it. SCOTUSblog is one of my favorite sites and I check/refer to it often. It's surprisingly handy.

Over the years, I've noticed that people are keen on being dishonest, lying by omission, misrepresenting, and intentionally advocating incorrect inferences. Often it's the loudest and most zealous people who do that, sometimes even going far enough to fabricate data. Rather than take them at their word, rather than rely on journalists, rather than rely on popular opinion, I've just made the effort to go find out the facts (as much as I can). I'd like to say it works well but I don't think it really does because it does nothing to actually help encourage others to do the same.

Actually there's a pretty good trail being laid down:

http://missoulian.com/news/loc...

Not only that, but per this article (with stats), bee populations are stable to increasing despite CCD:

http://www.perc.org/articles/e...

The amount of honey being produced is a good indicator, given you can't make honey without bees.

This won't load for me but I imagine it goes into more detail:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/...

And actually, you can demonstrate 'insanity' in any wild colony with an aging queen -- the bees become aggressive at greater and greater distances from the hive. I watched this with a wild colony that had taken up residence in the wall of a barn. For the first three years, they were 'gentle' (not concerned about intruders) -- to the point that you could actually poke around in their entryway without incurring any retaliation. The 4th year, they got twitchy about people walking nearby. The 5th year, they regularly chased people who passed within about 20 feet of their hive entrance. The colony died off entirely that winter. Far as I saw, it never swarmed, indicating they didn't produce any new queens.

We probably don't see this in domesticated colonies because modern beekeepers are diligent about replacing queens in a timely manner. But I asked an old-timer about it (who'd been in the bee business since the 1930s) and he said that was all perfectly normal for a colony with an old queen.

Bear in mind I'm not against law-abiding hunters, but in fact irresponsible hunters do endanger local populations. My neighbors (who have a horse farm) were basically living in fear when a group of hunters illegally parked on their property and started a hunt without permission.

A quick google search finds similar stories
http://missoulian.com/news/local/libby-hunter-charged-with-shooting-man-while-pursuing-wounded-deer/article_6e1ae68a-5cf6-11e3-912c-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100726_Landowners_fight_hunter_trespassing.html?id=99220354

Inaccurate unscientific ramblings, sound bites and clichés do not support your argument. That not only goes for hkmwbz but also Soulskill (the author of this topic who so brazenly declares the science is all but settled), JD, Shavano and Blueg3 below. Global Warming / Climate Change is NOT scientific fact, it is THEORY presently being developed and there is still much to learn. Blind supporters of global warming make outrageous claims and forget that all of this is THEORY which must be backed up with evidence. There are no 'denialists' - that is not even a word! You offer NO LINKS to scientific studies to back up your outrageous claims, so I will.

Urban Heat Islands are definitely real, especially in rapidly growing countries like China. See this paper published by the Journal of Geophysical Research:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/new-paper-uhi-alive-and-well-in-china/

So hkmwbz you are certifiably wrong there. Then you persist with your clichés

there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans.

Really? Show us your evidence. Where are your links? What is definitely an undisputed scientific fact is how little scientists know and how much they are still learning today.

Then we have JD (below) making ridiculous statements like:

The current imbalanced rise in CO2 is much more troubling because studies show that plants do NOT like massive levels of CO2 unless they come combined with massive levels of O2.

JD what makes you think CO2 is presently imbalanced? Where is the evidence for your statement? Do you actually know what the present percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is??? It presently is around 0.039445%. Do you have any idea how the increase in CO2 has increased during the last 50 years? It has increased from 0.032 to 0.0395, or by approximately 25%. Here is the data:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Look at that graph. Its a fairly straight line over a period of 50 years. Fairly straight line despite the dramatic jump in CO2 emissions since the mid-1800's (PDF). Even though human population has more than doubled during the last 50 years! Even though the number of cars has increased 800% from 122 Million in 1960 to over 1 Billion today. And yet somehow our planet's climate just keeps on balancing things out and the rate of increase of CO2 is fairly constant. But wait, JD definitely said "imbalanced rise".

JD continues:

CO2 rises alone, without any other alteration to the environment, will cause plant growth to decline and is eventually toxic.

Really? Where is your scientific evidence? The reality is CO2 is a fertilizer to plants. Plants LOVE CO2, even without a corresponding rise in O2 (wrong again). Even in high concentrations CO2 continues to act as a fertilizer. Here are some links from climate change advocates which you seem to blindly trust:

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect
http://www.good.is/post/rick-santorum-thinks-carbon-dioxide-isn-t-harmful-to-plants-tell-that-to-a-plant/

There's a store in Missoula, Montana that has quite a different view of the used CD business: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/10/31/ente rtainer/ent02.txt

You weren't by any chance just trolling for that digg site, whose popularity seems to be waning as it becomes more apparent that it is simply a marketdroid trap, where an individuals vote is simply over ruled by either a editors unlimited votes or a companies hundreds or even thousands of votes.

What, you still can find that firefox extension for handling multiple digg accounts ;).

Here's a few links for everyone:

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt

http://www.grupthink.com/topic/5605

http://digg.com/politics/Voters_Appalled_Over_Forc ed_Amendment_to_Marijuana_Law_Passed_by_the_People #c5840343?cedit=58403435840343

Measure (This is actually short and readable. Maybe you will place it on the ballot in your county?)
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/Election/Marijuana_Ii nit.pdf
Article
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt

Article in local paper.
The actual initiative

The current story.

You're welcome.

Article in local paper.
The actual initiative

The current story.

You're welcome.

Another.. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt

Man -- and I thought *I* was lazy. But too lazy to Google it? Wow.

Google found this.

Here's a news article from the local paper about the incident. The Missoulian

If you raise the tax high enough, a lot of people will drop the "sin."

Actually, I doubt many people drop the sin. Instead, they will look for illegal, and cheaper alternatives. It's happened with cigarrettes, people are trying to buy them online, or from indian reservations where the taxes aren't charged.

Also, I personally don't agree with abortions, but a $10k tax is NOT the way to get rid of them. Yeah, a lot of people will leave Texas to get them, but a lot of people will go to illegal places, and get an unsafe one, or try to give themselves one.