You do realize you're talking about a sliver of the horses in the nation, right? I'm not saying I like the race horse industry. I'm simply saying that you're essentially falsely judging millions of very responsible and loving horse owners based on a vast minority of them associated with a very specific industry. It's like comparing every person who gardens to massive farming operations clear-cutting rainforests.
As a human example, pretty much everyone knows that diets relatively low in fat and sugar will benefit their health, but that doesn't mean they like them.
And yet we have a government increasingly interested in telling us we're damn well going to do what they think is best for us whether we like it or not. No salt on restaurant tables, no 32.oz soda drinks, regulation on alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc.
So I guess what you're saying is that the government treats us like we treat horses.
The point is that the horse was able to identify the RIGHT symbol for it's own preferred outcome. That's the interesting outcome to the study : The horses differentiated between symbols.
Yes, this is essentially training the horses to perform an action. But the test could not have been considered a success if the horses didn't demonstrate the cognitive ability to identify symbols and choose appropriately between symbols for a predictable outcome. It is a step further than "ring the bell, get a treat".
The condition of the horse (sweaty) wasn't a factor brought by the anticipation of the tests. It was a manufactured state to determine if the horse would demonstrate a desire to have its blanket removed, AND be able to communicate that desire.
And its a gross overstatement to expect that it is incumbent upon every person that uses a computer to be educated to the level you're suggesting. While there are certainly computer and security experts who do have that level of knowledge, skill and experience, they are in the vast minority of users. And this applies equally to your grandma and to low level clerical types that work in all forms of public service.
While I would certainly hope that the computers in use by individuals handling classified data are being routinely examined and secured by the aforementioned experts, the user himself cannot be expected to hold to the same skill set. Their time is meant to be spent on matters of a much different nature, and it would be self-defeating for them to take that burden upon themselves. The machines should be controlled by the experts in such a way that the user cannot inadvertently present undue risk, and the user should be educated on basic user-level best practices and procedures. But what you're suggesting is akin to saying that every nurse and guard in your hospital must be capable of brain surgery.
Even when speaking about the home computer of the head of the FBI (a computer that shouldn't contain anything work-related at all), it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that you do the little things that most anyone can grasp if told, while not being deluded enough to expect them to perform brain surgery.
What's absurd is the notion that they would internally decide that the agency conceived of, developed and then engaged in secret illegal activity, and then that same apparatus self-corrected without external influence.
I agree that the Saturday Night Massacre was what did him in. But it was a factor because it was put into context with the leaks from Felt via W&B. The other reporters got teeth into the story because it was being validated by W&B source Felt. Nixon's strategic errors would have been explained away far more easily had the validation not existed.
The underlying issue was undoubtedly the use of the Plumbers. It was unethical at best and proved later to be flat-out illegal on a number of fronts. But we'd have likely never known had the leaks not existed.
What about the mention in all of those articles about the striking number of people who want jobs, but have given up? That contradicts a very low unemployment rate, doesnt it? If you argue that this is a factor of more jobs requiring a college degree, I'd argue that's a social construct that is largely a product of falling high school standards (which I mentioned).
Regardless, that's one line of many in my original post suggesting that "we're in a better place" is not accurate in the big picture.
You specifically mentioned that Nixon's popularity went into the tank. Which was in large part due to the coverage of the scandal by Woodward and Bernstein. Without that popularity, as we all know, its more politically expedient for other actors in government to pursue a legal case.
We see the reverse evidenced regularly today. The popularity levels insulate individuals a great deal from what should be legitimate concerns that are pursued to their best conclusions.
And all that reply of mine about labor belies the fact that of the list of shit I posted, you keyed on one to tell me I was wrong. So even if you're right, we're still in shit stew.
We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline.
This one is due in huge part to the baby boom and all of them retiring. Between that and a decline in birth rates, you're going to have a smaller workforce.
The decrease in the labor force last month also probably didn’t reflect the retirement of more baby boomers. The participation rate among those 65 years old and older rose to 18.9 percent in April from 18.5 percent the prior month.
In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs.
In other words, a remarkable number of Americans are not only unemployed, but are also declining to seek new employment. That includes a striking number of 18-24 year olds, according to a new report from Demos called “Stuck: Young America’s Persistent Jobs Crisis.” According to the report, Americans in that age group had lower participation rates than 25-34 year olds or 35-64 year olds across the educational spectrum.
Thats just the first few articles on a google search of "fewer americans in the workforce", and no one would claim that those sources are slanted Republican or Conservative. They are from 2012, 2013 and 2015, and the trend continues thru today. But just to make sure, here's that same search limited to the last year.
The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for "prime-age men" among the world's developed countries.
1. Fewer adults are working
Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working. The so-called Labor Force Participation rate hasn't been this low since the late 1970s. The rate measures how many people over age 16 are working or actively seeking work. Back in the '70s, it was low because fewer women worked outside the home.
That's not the story today. Now, three factors are driving the decrease in workers.
The first is that a huge part of the adult population, Baby Boomers, are retiring. That's expected and healthy. It explains about half of the decline in the workforce.
The second is more young people are going to college and graduate school. They are studying more, which should be a positive for the nation.
But the third one is alarming: some people have just given up on finding work. It's hard to qu
And by the definitions of some in this thread, Felt is a traitor, a criminal, and worse. Yet his leaks and the subsequent pressure of the press on Nixon eventually brought the truth of corruption and crime to light.
It can be argued that the on-going systemic intrusions of the government against the people, and in conflict with law and the Constitution, is also treason.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
It is impossible to break the law in following orders of your superiors, remain silent when you know that laws are being broken, and/or act in direct conflict with multiple facets of the Constitution, and remain true to this oath. It is not defensible under US law to say "I was just following orders.". It is also not defensible to say, "But I told my boss I thought it was wrong.". If there's a pattern of attempts to resolve the conflict between orders you are receiving and the oath you have taken, it is a brave person who effectively puts their future, their freedom and even their life at stake to attempt to hold true to that oath.
Apply this line of thought to the IRS and the Dept of State, and things that might have made some degree of news coverage. Then consider the possibility that people might not want to be the one that allows actual evidence of wrong doing to come to light, else they be retired to Russia as well.
We're in a better place.... based on what?
- We've more than doubled the national debt.
- We're mired in shit in the middle east in more countries, not less.
- We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline. Worst most in the black communities who continue to be told that the world is stacked against them and there is no way they can succeed, and they believe that horse shit.
- We've angered several key allies globally including Britain, Japan and Israel. Hell, the President of the Philippines just said he wants Americans out.
- Civil Rights has taken a pretty ugly turn and there are those among us more suspicious of the other race than they have been in a long time (the other race, being whatever they arent), thanks to the press stirring up the one-sided claims of bigotry and ignoring the other, while the President comes out and says inflammatory and irresponsible shit like, "Well, I don't have all the facts, but the cops acted stupidly.". (Paraphrased)
- Health care costs have skyrocketed along with insurance premiums helped along in large part by the Affordable Care Act.
- Most respectable economists will tell you flat out that the markets are artificially inflated and another crash isnt a possibility, but rather an eventuality that will make the 2008 "recession" look like a picnic, and we can thank the bailouts for a significant portion of that.
- College tuition is insane for education that 20 years ago was considered the minimum standard necessary to graduate from high school, where high school now is churning out record numbers of illiterate entitled jackasses.
- Food prices are continuing to rise, in part due to the on-going campaigns of the EPA and FDA to regulate every aspect of every thing you might maybe someday kinda put in your body, while ensuring that you have to deal with government bureaucracy just to get the water to farm or raise livestock.
- Almost every "journalist" is fully and apologetically in the tank for one political party or the other, and have stopped telling the people the truth about much of anything.
- Our energy sector is fully under attack with costs to the consumers continuing to rise while the rickety state of the infrastructure to supply whatever renewable energy of the day you choose continues to degrade to the point of collapse.
I could put another 10 items on this list without research. So again I'll ask, how are we better?
We're not wealthier, unless you are among an elite subset.
We're not better educated.
Our costs are not decreasing for almost anything.
We're not living with our neighbors with more peace, joy or understanding unless you're in a key special interest group. (Which I will admit we've made gains in.)
We (collectively) are not enjoying lower unemployment.
We're in more on-going military conflicts than we were, and we've lost more soldiers that in the previous decade in the process.
The opinion globally of both Americans and their leaders is much lower around the world than it was.
And Bush started us on half of this stupidity, so he gets no pass from me either.
I'd say we're neck deep in shit stew personally. But thank you for the direct evidence provided that the "journalists" have accomplished their goal.
Who decides what is hate speech? You? Hillary? Obama?
I tell you what, I think it's hurtful and mean to say that I have white privilege. I believe that I am being singled out purely based on the color of my skin and it being assumed that because of that skin color I am somehow a hazard to society. I think it's further hateful and harmful that I am assumed to be misogynistic because I have a penis. Based purely on my gender I am assumed to be a destructive element to society. I believe that the terms "white privilege" and "male-dominated" are micro-aggressions, that they are racist and sexist generalizations, and by every comparative definition to anyone that chants them while quite literally RIOTING in the streets, they are undeniably guilty of hate speech.
Where is your outrage for harms done me?
Where is your campaign slogan to protect me from the wildfire of anger and hate directed at me?
Or will you admit that by your definitions that free speech is for you to stir anger toward me, but that you personally mean to deny me any rights to turn that speech back on you.
I think you overestimate the amount of "love" anyone has for him. They love the fact that he'll say the first stupid shit that comes to his mind. But he'll flip-flop on 80% of it tomorrow to fit the political winds he's supporting on that given week. He's a Corporate Sugar daddy who buys and sells favors for legislative advantage turned Political Whore who'll put forth the position most likely to get him elected... so that he can directly impact legislation that's personally advantageous. In that regard his campaign is really just a means to cut out the middle-man.
If by "career" you mean the dipshits that get an over-priced CS degree, are bitter because they assumed that their first job will have a big fat salary to pay that off and corner office, and then spend the next 20 years trying to avoid any new project so they can keep surfing the gaming and cosplay sites, you might have a point. But if you use the word "career" in a more valid sense for people who continue to widen their knowledge base to include non-tech skills like writing and project management, and who tackle new challenges head-on, then there's a damn good work to be had. I personally make really good money and I might have to work a night or a weekend once every several months. I dont have to deal with any customers at all because I design the solutions the "career" employees you're talking about have to implement and support. My job is frustrating as hell, but that revolves entirely around the aforementioned idiots, and my non-tech bosses selling shit-brained ideas they haven't discussed with their tech staff, and that down-side is not at all unlike any other career.
Your argument is like saying that going into the restaurant business is stupid because you'll be washing dishes for the rest of your life. Or that going into the construction business is stupid because you will be installing toilets forever. Yeah, sure, if you're inept or lazy that''s true in any "career". And if you think you missed an opportunity to skip and dance off to a job that you just love doing every day, well, welcome to the real world and 98% of the workforce.
You're right though. "Corporate Whore" is the right term. And it can be aptly applied to the hypocrites who spew this kind of horse shit on a regular basis. You just incorrectly applied to just one of the two major parties, rather than both.
So essentially, "... every study on the subject that has ever been done" means, "every study that I agree with, and disregards anything done that I don't like".
Typical. I shouldn't be surprised, but at least I know there's now no point at all in debating with you.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize you're talking about a sliver of the horses in the nation, right? I'm not saying I like the race horse industry. I'm simply saying that you're essentially falsely judging millions of very responsible and loving horse owners based on a vast minority of them associated with a very specific industry. It's like comparing every person who gardens to massive farming operations clear-cutting rainforests.
As a human example, pretty much everyone knows that diets relatively low in fat and sugar will benefit their health, but that doesn't mean they like them.
And yet we have a government increasingly interested in telling us we're damn well going to do what they think is best for us whether we like it or not. No salt on restaurant tables, no 32.oz soda drinks, regulation on alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc.
So I guess what you're saying is that the government treats us like we treat horses.
The point is that the horse was able to identify the RIGHT symbol for it's own preferred outcome. That's the interesting outcome to the study : The horses differentiated between symbols.
Yes, this is essentially training the horses to perform an action. But the test could not have been considered a success if the horses didn't demonstrate the cognitive ability to identify symbols and choose appropriately between symbols for a predictable outcome. It is a step further than "ring the bell, get a treat".
The condition of the horse (sweaty) wasn't a factor brought by the anticipation of the tests. It was a manufactured state to determine if the horse would demonstrate a desire to have its blanket removed, AND be able to communicate that desire.
HAHAHAH!
Bullshit. The Apple elitists will just become adept at poking the damn thing with their nose. It'll become some kind of twisted salute to one another.
If you can run out and be a good little consumer sheep and buy the brand new iPhone, you can afford headphones and gloves.
Apparently it's the price of inflating your ego. Or maybe a tax on vanity.
And its a gross overstatement to expect that it is incumbent upon every person that uses a computer to be educated to the level you're suggesting. While there are certainly computer and security experts who do have that level of knowledge, skill and experience, they are in the vast minority of users. And this applies equally to your grandma and to low level clerical types that work in all forms of public service. While I would certainly hope that the computers in use by individuals handling classified data are being routinely examined and secured by the aforementioned experts, the user himself cannot be expected to hold to the same skill set. Their time is meant to be spent on matters of a much different nature, and it would be self-defeating for them to take that burden upon themselves. The machines should be controlled by the experts in such a way that the user cannot inadvertently present undue risk, and the user should be educated on basic user-level best practices and procedures. But what you're suggesting is akin to saying that every nurse and guard in your hospital must be capable of brain surgery. Even when speaking about the home computer of the head of the FBI (a computer that shouldn't contain anything work-related at all), it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that you do the little things that most anyone can grasp if told, while not being deluded enough to expect them to perform brain surgery.
What's absurd is the notion that they would internally decide that the agency conceived of, developed and then engaged in secret illegal activity, and then that same apparatus self-corrected without external influence.
Would you then argue that the plight of blacks is their own fault?
I agree that the Saturday Night Massacre was what did him in. But it was a factor because it was put into context with the leaks from Felt via W&B. The other reporters got teeth into the story because it was being validated by W&B source Felt. Nixon's strategic errors would have been explained away far more easily had the validation not existed.
The underlying issue was undoubtedly the use of the Plumbers. It was unethical at best and proved later to be flat-out illegal on a number of fronts. But we'd have likely never known had the leaks not existed.
What about the mention in all of those articles about the striking number of people who want jobs, but have given up? That contradicts a very low unemployment rate, doesnt it? If you argue that this is a factor of more jobs requiring a college degree, I'd argue that's a social construct that is largely a product of falling high school standards (which I mentioned).
Regardless, that's one line of many in my original post suggesting that "we're in a better place" is not accurate in the big picture.
You specifically mentioned that Nixon's popularity went into the tank. Which was in large part due to the coverage of the scandal by Woodward and Bernstein. Without that popularity, as we all know, its more politically expedient for other actors in government to pursue a legal case.
We see the reverse evidenced regularly today. The popularity levels insulate individuals a great deal from what should be legitimate concerns that are pursued to their best conclusions.
And all that reply of mine about labor belies the fact that of the list of shit I posted, you keyed on one to tell me I was wrong. So even if you're right, we're still in shit stew.
We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline.
This one is due in huge part to the baby boom and all of them retiring. Between that and a decline in birth rates, you're going to have a smaller workforce.
Not true according to Bloomberg : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
The decrease in the labor force last month also probably didn’t reflect the retirement of more baby boomers. The participation rate among those 65 years old and older rose to 18.9 percent in April from 18.5 percent the prior month.
Not entirely true, according to US News : http://www.usnews.com/news/the...
In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs.
Not according to MSNBC : http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/fe...
In other words, a remarkable number of Americans are not only unemployed, but are also declining to seek new employment. That includes a striking number of 18-24 year olds, according to a new report from Demos called “Stuck: Young America’s Persistent Jobs Crisis.” According to the report, Americans in that age group had lower participation rates than 25-34 year olds or 35-64 year olds across the educational spectrum.
Thats just the first few articles on a google search of "fewer americans in the workforce", and no one would claim that those sources are slanted Republican or Conservative. They are from 2012, 2013 and 2015, and the trend continues thru today. But just to make sure, here's that same search limited to the last year.
According to the Chicago Tribune : http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for "prime-age men" among the world's developed countries.
And from CNN Money : http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/0...
1. Fewer adults are working
Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working. The so-called Labor Force Participation rate hasn't been this low since the late 1970s. The rate measures how many people over age 16 are working or actively seeking work. Back in the '70s, it was low because fewer women worked outside the home. That's not the story today. Now, three factors are driving the decrease in workers. The first is that a huge part of the adult population, Baby Boomers, are retiring. That's expected and healthy. It explains about half of the decline in the workforce.
The second is more young people are going to college and graduate school. They are studying more, which should be a positive for the nation. But the third one is alarming: some people have just given up on finding work. It's hard to qu
And by the definitions of some in this thread, Felt is a traitor, a criminal, and worse. Yet his leaks and the subsequent pressure of the press on Nixon eventually brought the truth of corruption and crime to light.
It can be argued that the on-going systemic intrusions of the government against the people, and in conflict with law and the Constitution, is also treason.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
It is impossible to break the law in following orders of your superiors, remain silent when you know that laws are being broken, and/or act in direct conflict with multiple facets of the Constitution, and remain true to this oath. It is not defensible under US law to say "I was just following orders.". It is also not defensible to say, "But I told my boss I thought it was wrong.". If there's a pattern of attempts to resolve the conflict between orders you are receiving and the oath you have taken, it is a brave person who effectively puts their future, their freedom and even their life at stake to attempt to hold true to that oath.
Apply this line of thought to the IRS and the Dept of State, and things that might have made some degree of news coverage. Then consider the possibility that people might not want to be the one that allows actual evidence of wrong doing to come to light, else they be retired to Russia as well.
We're in a better place.... based on what?
- We've more than doubled the national debt.
- We're mired in shit in the middle east in more countries, not less.
- We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline. Worst most in the black communities who continue to be told that the world is stacked against them and there is no way they can succeed, and they believe that horse shit.
- We've angered several key allies globally including Britain, Japan and Israel. Hell, the President of the Philippines just said he wants Americans out.
- Civil Rights has taken a pretty ugly turn and there are those among us more suspicious of the other race than they have been in a long time (the other race, being whatever they arent), thanks to the press stirring up the one-sided claims of bigotry and ignoring the other, while the President comes out and says inflammatory and irresponsible shit like, "Well, I don't have all the facts, but the cops acted stupidly.". (Paraphrased)
- Health care costs have skyrocketed along with insurance premiums helped along in large part by the Affordable Care Act.
- Most respectable economists will tell you flat out that the markets are artificially inflated and another crash isnt a possibility, but rather an eventuality that will make the 2008 "recession" look like a picnic, and we can thank the bailouts for a significant portion of that.
- College tuition is insane for education that 20 years ago was considered the minimum standard necessary to graduate from high school, where high school now is churning out record numbers of illiterate entitled jackasses.
- Food prices are continuing to rise, in part due to the on-going campaigns of the EPA and FDA to regulate every aspect of every thing you might maybe someday kinda put in your body, while ensuring that you have to deal with government bureaucracy just to get the water to farm or raise livestock.
- Almost every "journalist" is fully and apologetically in the tank for one political party or the other, and have stopped telling the people the truth about much of anything.
- Our energy sector is fully under attack with costs to the consumers continuing to rise while the rickety state of the infrastructure to supply whatever renewable energy of the day you choose continues to degrade to the point of collapse.
I could put another 10 items on this list without research. So again I'll ask, how are we better?
We're not wealthier, unless you are among an elite subset.
We're not better educated.
Our costs are not decreasing for almost anything.
We're not living with our neighbors with more peace, joy or understanding unless you're in a key special interest group. (Which I will admit we've made gains in.)
We (collectively) are not enjoying lower unemployment.
We're in more on-going military conflicts than we were, and we've lost more soldiers that in the previous decade in the process.
The opinion globally of both Americans and their leaders is much lower around the world than it was.
And Bush started us on half of this stupidity, so he gets no pass from me either.
I'd say we're neck deep in shit stew personally. But thank you for the direct evidence provided that the "journalists" have accomplished their goal.
Who decides what is hate speech? You? Hillary? Obama?
I tell you what, I think it's hurtful and mean to say that I have white privilege. I believe that I am being singled out purely based on the color of my skin and it being assumed that because of that skin color I am somehow a hazard to society. I think it's further hateful and harmful that I am assumed to be misogynistic because I have a penis. Based purely on my gender I am assumed to be a destructive element to society. I believe that the terms "white privilege" and "male-dominated" are micro-aggressions, that they are racist and sexist generalizations, and by every comparative definition to anyone that chants them while quite literally RIOTING in the streets, they are undeniably guilty of hate speech.
Where is your outrage for harms done me?
Where is your campaign slogan to protect me from the wildfire of anger and hate directed at me?
Or will you admit that by your definitions that free speech is for you to stir anger toward me, but that you personally mean to deny me any rights to turn that speech back on you.
I think you overestimate the amount of "love" anyone has for him. They love the fact that he'll say the first stupid shit that comes to his mind. But he'll flip-flop on 80% of it tomorrow to fit the political winds he's supporting on that given week. He's a Corporate Sugar daddy who buys and sells favors for legislative advantage turned Political Whore who'll put forth the position most likely to get him elected... so that he can directly impact legislation that's personally advantageous. In that regard his campaign is really just a means to cut out the middle-man.
If by "career" you mean the dipshits that get an over-priced CS degree, are bitter because they assumed that their first job will have a big fat salary to pay that off and corner office, and then spend the next 20 years trying to avoid any new project so they can keep surfing the gaming and cosplay sites, you might have a point. But if you use the word "career" in a more valid sense for people who continue to widen their knowledge base to include non-tech skills like writing and project management, and who tackle new challenges head-on, then there's a damn good work to be had. I personally make really good money and I might have to work a night or a weekend once every several months. I dont have to deal with any customers at all because I design the solutions the "career" employees you're talking about have to implement and support. My job is frustrating as hell, but that revolves entirely around the aforementioned idiots, and my non-tech bosses selling shit-brained ideas they haven't discussed with their tech staff, and that down-side is not at all unlike any other career. Your argument is like saying that going into the restaurant business is stupid because you'll be washing dishes for the rest of your life. Or that going into the construction business is stupid because you will be installing toilets forever. Yeah, sure, if you're inept or lazy that''s true in any "career". And if you think you missed an opportunity to skip and dance off to a job that you just love doing every day, well, welcome to the real world and 98% of the workforce.
You're right though. "Corporate Whore" is the right term. And it can be aptly applied to the hypocrites who spew this kind of horse shit on a regular basis. You just incorrectly applied to just one of the two major parties, rather than both.
I'm pretty sure that very few who have killed someone while driving drunk "intended" to kill. But they sure as hell go to jail for it.
So essentially, "... every study on the subject that has ever been done" means, "every study that I agree with, and disregards anything done that I don't like".
Typical. I shouldn't be surprised, but at least I know there's now no point at all in debating with you.