Slashdot Mirror

Citing WorldNetDaily is a crime against discourse. Citing Jerome Corsi (a 9/11 truther, Obama birth certificate conspiracist who also claims that oil is a self-replenishing resource that doesn't originate from fossilized organic matter) is doubly so. Not surprisingly, he's presenting yet another conspiracy theory, this one about the inflation rate.

Not that he doesn't raise some interesting points, but given the source, I can't accept those points until I see them seconded by someone who actually knows things about stuff.

The problem I have with the cap and trade is that it is necessarily harsh and indifferent on the people least likely to pay their existing bills. And no, getting a refund a year out is not a viable solution.

1) I don't see why it isn't a viable solution.

2) If the tax rebate were given in the form of reduced withholdings, the money would be available sooner.

You a fool if you think they were helpless bitches on capitol hill being slapped around by the republicans.

Not a fool. Just a cynical observer of what actually happened over the last decade. You're still pushing the idea that, hey, the Democrats had eighteen whole months to undo the litany of damage of the previous six years of Republican misrule, so the economic collapse is their fault. But now you're simultaneously arguing that nobody really has any power in Congress, cuz "power" is just an artificial construct.

What is real? Dude, you just blew my mind.

All the Democrats have been able to do these last eight years is slow and temper the hard rightward push driven by the Bush administration. I challenge you again to name one piece of remotely liberal/progressive legislation that was signed into law during George Bush's tenure.

L3-Com transmitters and receivers alone cost ~$5k per set

Yes, great. I've worked for defense and it's contractors and your argument is a lot less exciting when everybody knows that making defense products has the highest profit margins and so thrives upon our soldiers' deaths.

Remember the Reagan-era propaganda with $640 toilet seats? The question is, if you didn't grow up in the Reagan era(well, even if you did), why are you drinking that kool-aid? Greedy bastard. Enjoy your blood money.

Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison?

I can't stomach the idiocy, but feel free to dig around Free Republic, WorldNet Daily, Powerline, Patriot Room, etc.

You'll find all manner of unpleasant things compared to Obama as well as cute backronyms of his name and the cold creeping realization that some people actually believe the batshit crazy things they are saying.

Read up on it if you don't understand it. Just like it took Nixon to go to China, it will take Obama to get this through. Those of you who voted for Obama and really believed that he stood for "hope and change" were every bit as big of morons as the people in the Republican Party who thought that McCain was some maverick conservative.

Sounds like a waste to me, unless you're downloading something that could get you in trouble.

There are many things that can "get you in trouble".

Downloading info about environmental or animal rights activism? Since green is the new red, you might make a terrorist watch-list.

Or maybe you want to read Chuck Norris's call for the formation of "cell groups" to prepare for another campaign of terrorist "succession" from the U.S..

Or maybe you want to blow the whistle on corrupt government but fear backlash, so need anonymous communication.

Or maybe you want to be able to get information about medical conditions without letting your "managed care" company know.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645 ^ Article above talks about a theory that oil may be a renewable resource. TL;DR: methane gas hits pockets of hot temperatures and condenses the heavier hydrocarbons into crude oil.

Okay, let's assume they are. Still seems a little naive to think that there would have been enough armed civilians to effectively stop them.

What do you base that on? How many times do you think they need to be shot before they are effectively stopped? Here's an example of it happening, at Virginia Tech, no less. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55326 here's another one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Church,_Colorado#Shooting Seems like you need one or two armed to do an "effective stop". Besides that, it is the gunman not knowing who, if anyone, is armed that provides the deterrent.

they want to see them unquestioningly as sick pedophiles that are destroying society, inhuman evil monsters that can not be related to.

Er no. These parents don't see homosexuals as monsters or anything like that. That's an absurd characterization, and its made so that you can, in turn, demonize the opposition.

Most don't. Some do.

References:

• Rick Warren compares gays to pedophiles
• "There is a strong undercurrent of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. Homosexual activists want to promote the flouting of traditional sexual prohibitions at the earliest possible age....they want to encourage a promiscuous society - and the best place to start is with a young and credulous captive audience in the public schools" -- Robert Knight, Family Research Council
• More from the FRC
• Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
• Fred Phelps

Of course, this is mostly a bunch of demagoguery, but there are some Americans that buy it -- for example, take this sampling of Arizonans. I don't really think it's fair to claim that this is "demonizing the opposition" when prominent figures have actually said these things. Publicly. On the record.

and....

another

Hell, they already are sneaking things in like invading your medical privacy , and laying the foundation for rationed health care and was championed by writings by Tom Daschle and others.

Sure, why not go ahead and take net neutrality...and sneak a ton of other crap under the radar, and we need it FAST.

Sounds kinda like how we got stuck with a lot of crap from the old PATRIOT act, eh? I'm surprised they haven't come up with a nifty acronym for this POS.

It is truly sad that the space program is not at the forefront anymore. Lets consider the cost...
NASA 2008 Budget: $17.318 Billion
The federal government throws this amount of money around all of the time. Heck, lately it's almost a rounding error with all of the spending going on. To put this in perspective, $8 billion dollars is currently earmarked for "state and tribal assistance grants" in the new stimulus package coming out. (see this spreadsheet ).

What are the gains? When the Apollo program was running it caught the public's fascination. It made an entire generation of kids that wanted to be astronauts. It made "rocket scientist" become part of our nomenclature and synonymous with "really smart guy". And most importantly, it spurred an interest in engineering and the "hard" sciences (math, physics, chemistry). The knee-jerk response of today's youth is that these subjects are too hard and not fun enough. And so the US is losing engineers and knowledge workers and replacing them with massage therapists . How many people in 1965 thought that the best job in the world would be to work at NASA? How many think that now? (or for that matter, how many think that ANY engineering job would be ideal for them?)

In addition to inspiring the public to idolize something besides the latest Hollywood tabloid, the space program made numerous technological and engineering breakthroughs that we are still benefiting from tremendously today. The difficulties of doing even simple things under the constraints of space exploration force tremendous ingenuity and resourcefulness that the nation then benefits from as a whole.

As popular as it is to diss McCarthy, the guy's an American hero, and most of his accusations are now known to have been spot on: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17401

WorldNetDaily? Thats a nice level-headed unbiased source.

WorldNetDaily? Thats a nice level-headed unbiased source.

WorldNetDaily? Thats a nice level-headed unbiased source.

I buy things because they're useful. I consider energy usage as measured in efficiency when purchasing a vehicle or even a PSU - because it costs me less money to operate the device.

I heard a PSA on the radio a couple of days ago about unplugging your cellphone charger when you're not using it - the implication being that it uses just as much electricity when you're not charging your phone as when you are. I just checked real quick. Two cell phone chargers (Motorola usb wall charger and iPhone USB wall adapter) - both use 0 when plugged in with no phone attached. The motorola charger is using 3 watts to charge the phone.

I call bullshit, and this is exactly why I'm so tired of "green" this or "eco-friendly" that - because I don't believe any of it. The hyperbole drowns out any meaningful facts. We're being asked to do stupid, completely inconsequential things that have zero or near zero measurable impact. My full-size tower / gaming rig uses a little under 200W powered up (idle), and 4 whole watts when on standby - not hibernating - standby. Obviously 4 > 0, but give me a break with the malarky about how the little LED is killing the planet.

Obviously, we don't want to let facts get in the way of our millions of green (dollars) of marketing "green" products. (I won't even get into the really interesting link between "Green Week" on TV and the owner/parent company of said TV channels who just happens to produce and sell "green" products...)

Conservation is great, I have no problem with taking good care of the planet. But enough with the BS marketing, and the BS from the gov't -- including what kind of lightbulbs I'm allowed to buy. Oh, you didn't realize that Congress has outlawed most incandescent lightbulbs? Yeah, it seemed to kind of be one of those things they just did because they can. I'm stocking up. Instead of any meaningful changes to our energy policy, like more nuclear power, this is the kind of BS the "green" movement decides we should have.

Sorry, /rant.

state-sponsored "health and wellness" checks?

Sorry, but only those in the public re-education camps are lucky enough to be apart of the New Freedom Initiative started by Bush. If you are lucky Obama will expand the program to all Americans.

The first sentence is from Hitler, the rest is apparently a quote by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He wrote a fictional letter by Hitler to make some commentary on current political happenings. It seems someone either lacks critical reading skills or they're passing it off as real to make their position look better. Now more people are passing it on without confirming the source.

The Rabbi's letter is here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36544

You yanks have it all covered as far as guns are concerned, from cradle to grave...

Yep. Which is why you'll never see something as brazen as the Mumbai attacks happen in this country. Too many Americans carry. Imagine if that photographer who got the only good picture of one of the attackers had a gun instead of a camera. Maybe he could have saved some lives. I think the guy himself even said this.

What are you going to do when they try that in your country? Will your unarmed cops and citizenry blow whistles at the terrorists and ask them to please stop killing people? Let me know how that works out for you.

One question... If I select to represent the UN as a "boots on the ground" relief worker, does the game allow me to set up prostitution rings, get involved in human trafficking, and start up a drug smuggling operation? What about withholding food for bribes & other personal favors? I mean... let's make it realistic people!!!

If you really believe this, and are against the Constitution,

The constitution didn't provide for medical care or welfare.

The modern welfare state: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies and other so-called assistance programs for the needy, the downtrodden, and the sick â" funded through taxation.

But did the Founding Fathers intend for a government-provided social safety net? The evidence clearly says no.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23519

You would fit in better in china. I applaud their ability to execute the criminals that you fight to keep alive. I think every liberal should be offered the chance to let the death row criminal they're pining for move into their guest room permanently to preserve their life.

Now it's not society carrying the load. It's the person crying for a child molester or a murderer. Let him massacre your family, you'll be better for it.

A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."

"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.

WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

"Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service."
Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'
'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes'

"will do" sounds pretty much like political-speak for required to me

Whether Adam & Steve down the street can marry does not affect me. Whether Comcast can pick and choose which packets of mine get through in a timely fashion does. Big difference.

-Ted

If you read what the man wrote, he agrees with you.

'Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like. '

His complaint is with the Government abusing its power, specifically in taking children by force and placing them into state "education" facilities where they are indoctrinated with the teaching that what "Adam & Steve" are doing down the street is right, good, and sociologically and morally interchangeable with a "traditional" marriage.

Case in point: School takes 1st-graders to see lesbian teacher wed

And that's not even scratching the surface of the Constitutional violation of Equal Protection that comes up every time the State extends a Privilege (marriage license, driver's license, fishing permit, cash payment, whatever) without requiring those that receive the Privilege to have provided a Public Benefit related to said Privilege.

- Marty Lund

You might want to think really hard before bragging that your candidate was supported by Nazis and Black Panthers.

There were at least two socialist parties that would (supposedly) be more in line with their views, but they still decided to vote for Obama. Just something to think about.

Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Obama or McCain.

Obama in a 2001 interview for WBEZ-FM:

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

(WorldNetDaily article)

YouTube (I haven't watched this because streaming videos are blocked, but I'm assuming it's relevant)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=74635 It was a televised interview on ABC.

"Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow - and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

"One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school. The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch. According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=78829

Your statement implied that you DID still work there and continued to pay "quite a bit of money", so I responded in kind. Don't get mad at me for your incapacity to write clearly.

And even though real-estate is "owned" by someone, it actually is a concession from the government. You don't own it if you don't pay your tithe to the government, and it can be taken from you if your ownership of it gets in the way of the public good. Or someone can make an argument that it does. And either way, not all real estate is privately owned, either. I explained that in my previous post, about parks and roads and such.

Yes, some places ARE horrifically crowded. But imagine if someone owned an apartment building in, say, Manhattan. They would be stupid to not rent it out... they'd have astronomical taxes to pay and no money coming in from it. The same forces don't affect the IP space, since it's a "virtual" good, and even though you pay a lot for your ARIN allocations, a /8 costs just as much as a /14, and that's only $18K a year at max. There's no incentive to change or relinquish addresses if you're a big enough company (which, coincidentally, are the ones who own the majority of the "dark" addresses.) After any employer insurance contributions and so on, I'd doubt that $18K is even a minimum wage worker's salary, so it would scarcely affect many medium companies or some small ones. So no, a "real estate" style market will NOT work.

Basically, the only solution to this (and it's only short-term, as more and more machines come online) is to redistribute the IP allocation, by mandate if necessary. Confiscation could quite easily be done under an "eminent domain" type clause, where you wouldn't be out money, you'd just be out of resources you weren't using anyway, and everyone would be better off by having more IP's available in general.

"Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!"

I've used a shotgun to deter assault (without having to brandish, threaten to use, or fire it) when trespassing drunks showed up trying to dump trash on my rural property. I lived far enough out that police response time was over a half-hour (when they could find the place) so there was no question of them being able to protect me from thieves or worse. If you don't live next to police protection, you don't HAVE rapid police response.

I've never shot anyone, but I have firearms for the same reason I have a fire extinguisher. When you need one, nothing else will do.

If you have an emotional reaction to firearms as displayed by your post, you are perfectly free not to own one, unless you are a householder in Kennesaw:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

"25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
That good old gun ban really did the trick now didn't it :)

The problem seems to be that in this particular case, the mass-killer *didn't* lie. But Bush didn't get his information directly from Saddam, did he ? He can't just make a phonecall or something. Instead, he had to rely on the CIA, who also doesn't ask Saddam directly, but instead (as it seems to be now) is pushed by Cheney's office to produce damning evidence.

Actually, WMD's WERE FOUND IN IRAQ! Just not in large enough numbers for our media to deem newsworthy.

But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of preconceived notions and talking points.

Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.

From the first link :
US Oil Consumption.
2004 40.294
2005 40.393
2006 39.958

I also understand that we are using less oil this year than last year and last year was less than '06. Although, I can't find a link for that so you'll have to take my word... or not. Not that it would matter as you didn't look at the links I provided the first time.

I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman [wikipedia.org]. Where are these predictions?

OK, how's this quote:

We cannot long continue our present rate of progress. The first check for our growing prosperity, however, must render our population excessive.

Sound familiar. I hear the same argument made every day. This one is different in that it was made about coal, not oil. Oh, and it was made in 1865. Such statements have been made ever since. Take this one for example:

Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.

That was from an article written in 2007. It says the same thing.

Here is someone how agrees with me:

Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom.

Of course, I said we'd be out of oil by now. Well, that may have been an exaggeration. We will never run out of oil. Eventually, it will be too expensive to bring out of the ground. So while we will have oil under ground, WE, meaning those with empty gas tanks, will not.

I was speaking of M. King Hubbert. He said US oil production would peak in 1970 and then fall. That was over 38 years ago. We should be out by now. While Hubbert was correct in his claim, his dates and reasoning were way off. It's not because we have run out of oil as he predicted, but because environmentalists have done whatever they can to curtail US energy production (not just oil!).

links:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47276
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/

While Teddy Roosevelt may have indeed expanded government, it was back in 1901-1909. I believe the Roosevelt you were referring to was good ole Franklin D.

Both Roosevelts expanded government. When I said Teddy did, though I didn't say it, I was thinking about his Trust Busting. Teddy went after several monopolies from JP Morgan to John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Teddy also sent in the Marines to fight the Barbary Privates in the Med. There was justification for that though, pirates had taken American citizens hostages as well as attacked US ships. Actually he did the same thing Thomas Jefferson did.

Falcon

Why didn't Clinton have the same problem? Because he FIRED THEM ALL as he took office and put his own people in. And it was CLINTON'S appointees that Bush was dealing with.

Bush politicizing the DOJ? Gimme a break!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22515

What's funny is that Bush has done most of the things that Limbaugh rails against Clinton for, and a lot more in some areas. Yet somehow Bush is to be celebrated while Clinton is vilified. It's simply his own biases at work. He isn't angry about what was done. He's angry that a democrat did it rather than a Republican.

Let's keep some perspective here. Bush catches flak for removing DOJ attorneys after a few years of trying to work with those people that were in place when he took office. An argument could be made that he tried to work with those across the aisle and realized that it was impossible.

Why didn't Clinton have the same problem? Because he FIRED THEM ALL as he took office and put his own people in. And it was CLINTON'S appointees that Bush was dealing with.

Bush politicizing the DOJ? Gimme a break!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22515

This assertion is patently silly at best, and offensive at worst. You don't think a single member of the Arab race is a Zionist?

Even if there is a thousand of them — that's not enough to justify a qualifier.

Say "Palestinian sympathizers" if that's what you mean.

Golda Meir called herself "a Palestinian". There is no such people — it is not a tribe or a state, it is a piece of land. Of all Palestinians (Jewish, Arabic, and others) and their sympathizers a far bigger percentage reject the discussed meaning of the term "occupation", than that of Arabs world-wide.

I'm open to suggestion for a better term.

Maybe then your rhetoric will sound less like thinly-veiled racism.

It really is not racism... Nope. I don't mind Arabs at all — but this point is where every one of them are wrong...

That was the same way the Clinton administration ran things. All email was deleted and record retention got rid of memos and documents.

Does the name Sandy Berger ring a bell?

This sockpuppet thing is getting popular Obama has the best one you can actually get one for your own! McCain is behind the curve here, they can only afford to hire real people to pose as sockpuppets clearly a cheap imitation. So when election time rolls around are you going to vote for some poser or the real deal?

Can't improve on that at all, except to spit up the rest of the quote:

Armed men are citizens. Unarmed men are subjects.

An interesting article with a long historical perspective:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalciti.html

Sir Walter Raleigh agreed with this point, suggesting that among the basic principles of the tyrant was "to unarm his people of weapons, money, and all means whereby they resist his power."

BTW, whilst looking for an origin for the quote, I found this disturbing article, very much related to today's topic: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66081

WND Exclusive AFRICAN POWDERKEG Unarmed victims beaten, burned to death Firearms Control Act forbids gun ownership, results in cold-blooded murder Posted: June 04, 2008 1:00 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling © 2008 WorldNetDaily

An outbreak of xenophobic violence has resulted in the murders of 56 people and forced thousands more to take shelter in camps, community halls and churches across South Africa - the victims are foreigners who are strictly forbidden from owning guns.

Foreigners in Gauteng Province are suffering from gunshot and stab wounds, while many others have been raped, fatally beaten and burned alive.

Thomas Eastes, national chairman of Gun Owners of South Africa, said foreigners are unable to defend themselves from such atrocities because they are not allowed to be armed in South Africa. He believes the rise in crime and chaos is chiefly a result of the Firearms Control Act passed by the South African Parliament.

"Arming foreigners and as many citizens in South Africa will surely provide an equal opportunity of survival for all," Eastes said. "The weak, the marginalised, the oppressed and frail have a chance of survival if they are armed. I believe that firearm ownership places great responsibility on people but also enables foreigners and legal citizens not to live in fear."

Approximately 22,000 people are murdered annually in the country for being of another race, Eastes said. Some are killed because they own cars or $5 cell phones.

"Five-year-old babies are raped and sodomised as a perceived traditional remedy for curing AIDS," he said. "Women are objects of abuse, and our children are badly neglected every day. People are tortured and murdered to set examples and create fear. This is what communism thrives on."

Foreigners from Zimbabwe escape to South Africa to avoid state bloodshed, terror, persecution, kidnapping and starvation. More than 15,000 refugees have been displaced by state violence since the end of March. Zimbabwean Collen Makumbirofa of the Foundation of Reason and Justice said the situation is shocking as the foreigners flee President Robert Mugabe's atrocities.

"Millions of Zimbabweans are being starved into submission by Mugabe's government," he said. "Mugabe has lost support of the majority of Zimbabweans, therefore is clinging onto power by terrorism. Tens of thousands of Zimbabweans have been tortured by Mugabe's secret police, militias, soldiers and war veterans."

The South African government is refusing to offer Zimbabwe refugees adequate protection. It stopped processing asylum permits in Johannesburg and shut down Home Affairs Offices. Corrupt officials seize goods belonging to foreigners, demand sex from immigrant women and refuse to apprehend criminals who murder unarmed victims.

"Xenophobic South Africans see the police arresting and abusing foreigners on a daily basis therefore by doing violence they are also helping the African Nation Congress' efforts to eliminate foreigners," he said. "The police don't do anything or they release the criminal on a bribe. Police are also biased against foreigners who report crimes against Sou

just because a robbery doesn't end up in a gunfight doesn't make it profitable.

Many/most people engaging in robbery today have a messed up risk/reward evaluation ability. There's far too many people who've been convicted of multiple robberies, arrested for robbery hours/days after getting out of jail. As for 'works quite well', well, I don't think it works when there's huge numbers of individuals with dozens of robbery convictions, and as many jail or prison visits.

How's the self defense tool ban helping England?
How about Australia?

England, Canada, and Australia often have higher violent crime rates, except in murder, than the USA.

We got quite competent police and quite a lot if not most robberies gets solved

I think that the robbery clear rate is well under 50%. Can't find a source at the moment, lost a link to a great statistics site.

As I said to the sibling, if you are truly so narrow minded and vengeful I feel sorry for you and hope you seek help, you are definitely not helping your society by spreading false fear.

Just to be clear, as I'm not the poster of the parent, I don't advocate vigilantism. I don't advocate seeking vengence. I advocate stopping the crime on the spot. Of defending yourself, and others.

...
Do people get robbed? Yes of course they do, but strangely seldom with a gun - usually its a knife being wielded.

Furthermore, gun ownership prevents crime. Take, for example, Kennesaw county in metro-Atlanta, Georgia. In 1982 they passed a law requiring gun ownership by each head of household. Crime dropped almost 89% in the first couple of years and has stayed roughly constant ever since with no murders for the last 25 years. Contrast that with Morton Grove, Illinois which banned guns for everyone but cops, their crime rate increased by almost 16% immediately after the ban was put into effect. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 )

More information about his case:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65455

Please read this: http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2005/11/weapon_of_mass.html

Okay. It appears to be an attempt to claim that Iraq had some deteriorated old supplies that could (by the tortured definitions of this author, if not those of the UN, IAEA, or US intelligence) be called chemical weapons.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that. So what? How would that have consituted a threat to the United States that justified invasion?

And what about the HMX explosive that Bush alegedly "lost"? It's primarily used for an initial stage for a nuclear bomb: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

The first stage of a nuclear bomb is a small quantity of conventional explosives. Without the bits that go nuclear-boom, it's about as dangerous a weapon as a hand grenade.

And Saddam's attempt to obtain yellow cake uranium?

Uh, did you miss the part where it never existed?

Saddam's long support of terrorists? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40820

So one news agency reported that one unnamed captive claimed that some people who were in some way tied to the Iraqi government and Bin Laden talked at some point about perhaps working together indirectly at some point in the future, which appears to have never come to pass? And this, you feel, constitutes a threat to the United States that justified invasion?

That last bit is the important one, by the way. At issue is not whether Hussein was a good person, but whether Iraq was a threat to the United States. (And even if that were somehow to be established, the next question would be whether it was a threat best handled by invasion and occupation.)

And the answer, of course, is that Hussein had neither the means nor the desire to harm the US. He in fact would have been quite happy to return to his status as the US's lapdog, if American politics hadn't instead turned him into a useful scapegoat.

Please read this:
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2005/11/weapon_of_mass.html

And what about the HMX explosive that Bush alegedly "lost"? It's primarily used for an initial stage for a nuclear bomb:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

And Saddam's attempt to obtain yellow cake uranium?

Saddam's long support of terrorists?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40820
The ABC news video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Now, if you are somehow saying that I would think that the Black Panthers should have not been allowed to have guns when they were trying to defend themselves against abusive cops, it all boils down to who was breaking the law. The cops were certainly out of line, but I am not convinced the use of deadly force was the correct response there. The time and place to use deadly force is narrowly defined, read "In the Gravest Extreme" for more information. Now, mark me as over-rated and flame bait.

Software patents are one small but important piece of the IP Empire which demands universally oppressive laws.

• Silencing protest before it happens and then pushing protesters aside where they are not heard and can be abused, arrested and tortured. Need work? Apply here!
• Subordination of local law to US corporate interests.
• Globally depressed wages
• Dangerous genetic modifications and ecological ruin.
• And now, all your Email are belong to US. Why not? we treat everyone like criminals here.
• We should not forget free flow of slave labor for US agriculture. It might be claimed that no US Citizen would take the kind of work mega farms import Mexican citizens to do, but why not pay those people US wages and treat them as immigrants rather than keep them locked up?

The list goes on and on but it has one common theme, your rights mean nothing, shut up and get back to work for the man.

Before somebody claims that Judge Lamberth is some kind of left wing judicial activist, let me point out that he served in the JAG corps, including one year in Vietnam and then as a prosecutor until he was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. There he endeared himself to the Republicans by his rulings against the Clintons.

Here is his official biography and here is the wikipedia article about him.

And no worries about pollution or mercury poisoning.

No, but depending on who makes it, there's always lead to think about.

I had come across the 146% through some reading else where, so it might be over stated, but as for the increase in violent crimes by gun since further controls were started, they are on an up according to any search I've done.

The first three listing when searching google for 'australian gun ban':

http://www.gunowners.org/hlr-au.htm
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

Just about any study I've ever seen about the subject has seen an increase in gun related crimes right after further gun controls were enacted. There are some few places where such laws work, Iceland maybe?, but not most.

If you jettison anyone fighting for your side (i.e. science) as soon as they are attacked, you will very soon run out of smart people like Gore and Dawkins.

Escuse me? Isn't the core of this conversation about how politics + science = bad times for science? The problem with "global warming" is that Gore, a politician, is speaking a story that climatologists, meteorologists, scientists are denying is occurring. I'm more concerned that he is profiting from involvement in venture capitalists tied to "green" alternatives, while driving the national conversation to enable "carbon credits" managed by his firms.

This guy's not a "smart person", he's an "opportunist"... I'd even go as far as a textbook "special interest", which is doing nothing but driving a weakly supported climatology theory into our nation's science classrooms, and through his political history drives it into our nightly news. Newsflash: The Polar Bear population is not decreasing, and the earth is not getting warmer over the last decade despite predictions, and there's good evidence that the rush to follow the Kyoto treaty is now damaging the ozone layer again. I'd prefer to stick to the measured facts instead of politically jumping the gun just because it's a good "story".

-- Scott