The info from that article is wrong as the interviewed author later admitted. Hansen's prediction was based on a worst-case scenario of CO2 doubling by 2030 but his paper from that year or previous one said that a doubling by 2060 (Scenario B) was more likely.
The Salon article is wrong although the fault may be that of the interviewee. Bob Reiss asked Hansen what the view from his office would look like if his worst-case scenario from the paper he'd published not long before the interview were to come to pass. That would have been the Scenario A from the 1988 "Global Climate Change as Forecast by GISS 3D Model" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...
That scenario as described in the paper, assumes a CO2 doubling by 2030 but states that Scenario B's assumption of said doubling by 2060 is more likely.
Reiss details the conversation in a couple of his books but only named 2001's The Coming Storm when he corrected what he'd told to Salon, who never updated the online article. Either way, there's still quite some time before Hansen's prediction can be definitively shown to have been wrong
Then those who are below the poverty line or some other income threshold can get a rebate, tied to their previous year's income. Send them a cheque or add it as a line item to whatever other social assistance they're getting.
It's not fucking rocket science so don't get all bunched up over it.
The revolutionaries were well aware of the injustice of slavery. But they were also well aware that the revolution wouldn't have been successful.....bit off more than they could chew, and the bloodshed that resulted.
. That's a wonderful rationalization.....and it's nothing but a shitty excuse. The irony is that the despicable British masters did away with that barbaric practice decades before this liberty-lovin' new nation, and they accomplished it without killing additional hundreds of thousands.
The American Civil War had a death toll of ~600,000, several times the body count of the French Revolution & the Reign of Terror. So apart from having an extra 90 years of whipping niggers to pick more cotton, what exactly did that bit of rationalization accomplish?
You're just bullshitting without facts or even a clear idea of what you are saying.
If you think you can show that African-Americans achieved social equity immediately after the Civil War, please proceed.
I have no idea what "equal ENFORCEMENT" is even supposed to mean
Enforcement refers to the law. What is so difficult to grasp about this?
You advocate equality of outcome, which, although you seem incapable of grasping this, is a racist policy.
A racist policy would be one that *pretends* to give equal opportunity while subtly stacking the deck for or against one or more groups.
Well, yes, you accuse anybody of racism who doesn't subscribe to your twisted racial ideologies
Since it seems you don't read or recall your own statements, I can't be sure you read or understand mine. FYI, in this discussion, there's one person who was calling the other racist on several occasions right from the start, and then hilariously stated that (paraphrasing) "when I said racist, I didn't mean racist, but rather race-ist". Can't wait for you next kneeslapper, it's been a tiring couple of weeks and I could use the laugh.
In different words, I frankly don't care anymore whether people like you call me a racist, a misogynist, or a homophobe. You have misused and tainted those terms to the point that they have become meaningless.
Say what?? I've definitely implied that you have racist viewpoints ( that you may or may not be capable of distinguishing ) but you were the one who was quickest to fling epithets, with some gusto I might add. I can only assume that the other insults came from arguments with other and I don't have the time or the inclination to find out if you're deserving of them. But I can say that you clearly show a wide streak of what you so readily want to smear me with.
You're right: those systems of human ownership weren't ended by civil wars, they were ended by revolutions
And the "Revolutionary" War could have accomplished that in America if only all the rebellious colonists had been able to bridge the moral & logical contradiction of casting of their own chains while keeping the yoke firmly on the necks of the black Africans that their British masters forced into permanent hereditary slavery.
Furthermore, the vast majority of white Americans today are descendants of people who either fought slavery or had nothing to do with slavery at all. Even if the concept of inherited guilt were valid, the vast majority of white Americans have inherited no guilt related to slavery.
African-Americans continued to be a social underclass long after the end of the Civil War and the vast majority of white Americans were either willing participants in racial discrimination or complicit. I guess not everyone could be as resolute as the Quakers, even after a century.
European revolutions were motivated by self-interest of the oppressed, often related to starvation and brutal oppression. In the US, the vast majority of Union soldiers were volunteers, making personal sacrifices in order to liberate oppressed people in the South. Which one is more noble? Putting your life at risk because you want to improve your own situation, or putting your life at risk to help others?
I'd like to believe that was the primary motivation for the Union but even a cursory glance at the history raises so many questions. Why were black soldiers paid less? There were a couple hundred thousand, not the most numerous contingent but as many as any of the largest minority groups such as the Irish or Germans. Why were black soldiers in segregated units even when white officers were in charge and why did this persist so long, even after WW2? Why were they excluded from the victory parade?
Fortunately, most Americans are not your kind of evil bastard who thinks that individual rights are things granted by majority whim. Most people in the US still realize that the US is a society based on laws and the protection of individual liberties, even for individuals that one disagrees with.
Again, the history shows clearly that the "protection of individual liberties" has been selectively applied for a long time and until quite recently.
Democrats and progressives have a long history of racism and that that history continues today.
That is equally true of Republicans and conservatives - you just have to listen closely when they speak.
What we need is equal protection under the law, nothing more, and we got that
Only if equal protection means equal ENFORCEMENT; getting to that point for all social classes & minorities has been a long fight, not yet over.
There are no "both sides" to this. The world doesn't consist of Republicans and Democrats alone
As you are well aware, I'm referring to the people on the grand jury - their bias is probably more complicated than just black / white or Republican / Democrat
"screaming" into slavery were black Africans themselves. Slaves were brought to the Americas not under US rule but under British rule"
There's not a country called Africa and the types and status of slaves there were makes for considerable complexity given the size and diversity of the continent but in most cases there was greater hope and status for slaves and their children were not usually condemned to a life of slavery themselves. That said, some practices were much more barbaric and American slaves didn't usually have to fear castration like the "China birds" or ritual sacrifice. The Founding Fathers could have set the slaves free; the fact that they chose not to do so is not the fault of the British and was a clear moral failure. The inhabitants of the country of "Africa" didn't have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights or a Biblical exhortation to love thy neighbor. And while many countries wrestled with the question of slavery for a long time, I can't think of any other in Europe or the Western Hemisphere that required a rather un-Civil War to settle the question.
No, I don't believe that social progress only occurs through government action but at some point, it needs the support of law. The gay community is far too small to prevail through its own efforts - it needs the support & compassion of others if it wants to live openly. If the 310+ million non-gay Americans decided tomorrow to reinstitute slavery but only for the non-hetero population, there's fuck-all you could do to stop them solely through the strength of the LGBT community. To this day, I still encounter people who think that all homosexuals should have been destroyed because they perceive AIDS as the fault of super-fornicating fags in bathhouses and there are still prisons in the USA where HIV+ people are lumped into "ghettos".
I'm an Independent
Hmmph, I've never met an independent who so indulges in continuous demagoguery that the ills of American society are the fault of "Democrats & progressives".
It could very well be that both sides are "irrationally biased". The unwillingness of people to vote in a free society has always bothered me and it's very troubling if Ferguson's participation is that low. On the bright side for you, they're aren't helping those race-baiting progressives & Democrats.
The fleeing felon rule isn't the automatic death sentence it used to be and hasn't been for 30 years. Mike Brown's case could be justified based on what happened at the police vehicle but Wilson is the only account we have, and the evidence isn't entirely conclusive.
I don't know where your family fled persecution from or why but you said I shouldn't care so I'll take you at your word. But the ancestors of African-Americans didn't flee or immigrate, they were dragged kicking and screaming INTO persecution and not just for a single lifetime. And while slavery is a distant memory, persecution / segregation / etc. isn't.
I don't think that every problem in the black community is someone else's fault but to sweep the history under the rug is disingenuous. America proudly celebrates its history and traditions as defining its identity & character, loudly & proudly. Race relations is an integral part of that history, too - with blacks, natives, minorities in general.
As a gay man, do you give credit to anyone for your ability to live your life openly, assuming you do? I don't know how much of that can be credited to conservatives & the GOP. Since you're much closer to the rightwing political machine who are apparently free of racial divisiveness, perhaps you can get Rick Santorum to answer a couple questions. First is, who exactly are the "blah people"? Second, what did he mean by " "We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like – the anti-war government nig , er, America was a source for division around the world, that what we were doing was wrong"
I'm still mystified by what that was all about and this guy is no lightweight - he could well be a top contender again in the 2016 presidential race. I leave it up to you if you choose to mention that you're gay, given his past comments. It made little difference to me; perhaps this political leader of the GOP has......"evolved?" By the way, whatever happened to GOProud?
"I don't see why spawning would have any bearing on things" - REALLY?? Go introduce your genetically male parent as your mom and see how he & everyone else reacts. It should be perfectly acceptable for you or anyone to do that if you've had a close, loving, nurturing relationship with him - regardless of his genitalia.
If both parents are like that, then, congrats, you have two moms.
I wanted to know how to votes were cast to see if the GRAND JURY might have made their decision because of racial bias - by either side. This is still very much a factor, even in the 21st century. As I said before a 12-0, 50-50, or 8-4 in favor of trial or a 9 against (white) vs 3 in favor (black) gives a fair bit of info into how the jury was thinking and their leanings & bias. Lawyers put a lot of emphasis on the jury selection process; since there are no lawyers present at grand jury proceedings, I don't know if the jury is screened at all for bias.
Those people in the street weren't protesting because of being whipped up by the mainstream media or the progressives or the Democrats; they were there because it's a regular part of their reality going back generations. It may be better than the bad old days but it's still very much the norm.
And even if you argue that Mike Brown had it coming, you can't say that about every one of their dead kids & relatives. Did Tamir Rice have it coming? Or Akai Gurley? Or Aiyana Jones? Or Amadou Diallo? Or Sean Bell? At least some of these went to trial even if no officer was ever convicted. There are thousands of stories like this; citizens want the people they pay to protect & serve to be accountable.
Going to court may not be pleasant but we make hundreds of thousands of innocents submit to it all the time, for things as bad or much less so than ending a life. Despite what happened or who may be at fault or who had the right to shoot whom, it's Mike Brown who's dead, not Darren Wilson - a fact that the prosecutor forgot when he was supposed to be advocating for the victim. Let's say, strictly for argument sake's, that Wilson had immediately realized that Brown was the thief and ordered him on the ground and Brown complied. Then Wilson decides to teach the strongarm thieving thug a lesson about pushing around weaker people and starts kicking the shit out of him. Brown then bulks up to get through the barrage of kicks & blows and delivers a haymaker with his full Hulk Hogan demon power and kills Wilson with one punch.
How likely is it that Brown doesn't have to go to trial and the case against him is thrown out by the grand jury?
"but it simply doesn't fit history or political reality" - I suspect you're much younger than I. If you go back and look at the voting on LBJs Civil Rights Act, you'll see that the split on Yea / Nay was very much a North vs South and not so much Dem vs GOP. That said, at the time, the South was very much a Democrat stronghold. Times have turned and so have cloaks.
"She" used to be Bill, with facial hair and (presumably) male genitalia. How do you refer to someone who was male, fathered children, but is now female? How do their kids introduce them? "This is my dad, who's now my mother's wife?" If the couple stay married, does that make the original female of the pair a defacto lesbian?
The grand jury does NOT decide on guilt or innocence. Their job is to decide if there's sufficient probable cause to proceed to trial. What's interesting is that the prosecutor was almost acting as the defence for Officer Wilson, which is not his role. Do I know if Wilson is guilty? Nope - but there are enough questionable aspects to his description of events that I'd like to see him answer under cross-examination.
How is Brown "leaning" into the cop car? If Wilson is in the driver seat, there's no room for anyone's body to come through the window, especially not as big a person as Brown. And the photos of Wilson's "injuries"? If he can take several punches from an almost 300 lb Hulk Hogan-like "demon" and come out looking like that, he should consider professional boxing. He should have had massive swelling.
Well, in your defence, "she" wasn't always thus - "her" name until 2003 was Bill (William Salvador) Heineman, something of a legend in the gaming industry, going back to winning the 1st ever national video game contest - Atari's National Space Invaders Championship of November 1980.
If it was a simple matter of lies on mortgage applications, the crising would have happened a long time ago. And it wasn't deadbeats who were responsible for repackaging risky mortgages into MBSes & CDOs. Subprime lending has been under 8% for decades so a sudden doubling, nearly tripling in the space of 2 years should have been a HUGE red flag. You can tell all the lies you want on a mortgage application but every bank I've ever dealt with puts a hell of a lot of emphasis on the FICO score.
There have been times in my life when my credit was poor and any loan application during that period was either denied outright or required a suitable guarantor.
"Racist thinking like mine" - you have no idea what I think and showed the own reactionary racist lurking in your skin by being shockingly quick to call me a racist because I wanted to know if the grand jury voted on racial lines, something a number of people would have been curious about, whatever their leanings.
But it's telling that you smear modern Democrats with policies that they've long since discarded, at great political cost. Passing the Civil Rights Act cost Democrats the Solid South as LBJ feared and that worked very well to Nixon's advantage with his Southern Strategy - which has lasted to this day. If you're searching for the old racists Democrats you miss so much, you're looking in the wrong place - they've long been comfortably clad in Republican clothing.
So? The country is a lot less rural than it used to be and I've already pointed out that most families have more than one vehicle. Also, maybe farm country can use all those wind turbines to power their "little e-cars".
Slashdot Mirror
By "true costs", he means the cost of the environmental impact and total externalities.
The info from that article is wrong as the interviewed author later admitted.
Hansen's prediction was based on a worst-case scenario of CO2 doubling by 2030 but his paper from that year or previous one said that a doubling by 2060 (Scenario B) was more likely.
The Salon article was wrong - see my reply to OP.
The Salon article is wrong although the fault may be that of the interviewee. Bob Reiss asked Hansen what the view from his office would look like if his worst-case scenario from the paper he'd published not long before the interview were to come to pass.
That would have been the Scenario A from the 1988 "Global Climate Change as Forecast by GISS 3D Model" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...
That scenario as described in the paper, assumes a CO2 doubling by 2030 but states that Scenario B's assumption of said doubling by 2060 is more likely.
Reiss details the conversation in a couple of his books but only named 2001's The Coming Storm when he corrected what he'd told to Salon, who never updated the online article.
Either way, there's still quite some time before Hansen's prediction can be definitively shown to have been wrong
Then those who are below the poverty line or some other income threshold can get a rebate, tied to their previous year's income.
Send them a cheque or add it as a line item to whatever other social assistance they're getting.
It's not fucking rocket science so don't get all bunched up over it.
The revolutionaries were well aware of the injustice of slavery. But they were also well aware that the revolution wouldn't have been successful .....bit off more than they could chew, and the bloodshed that resulted.
.
That's a wonderful rationalization.....and it's nothing but a shitty excuse. The irony is that the despicable British masters did away with that barbaric practice decades before this liberty-lovin' new nation, and they accomplished it without killing additional hundreds of thousands.
The American Civil War had a death toll of ~600,000, several times the body count of the French Revolution & the Reign of Terror.
So apart from having an extra 90 years of whipping niggers to pick more cotton, what exactly did that bit of rationalization accomplish?
You're just bullshitting without facts or even a clear idea of what you are saying.
If you think you can show that African-Americans achieved social equity immediately after the Civil War, please proceed.
I have no idea what "equal ENFORCEMENT" is even supposed to mean
Enforcement refers to the law. What is so difficult to grasp about this?
You advocate equality of outcome, which, although you seem incapable of grasping this, is a racist policy.
A racist policy would be one that *pretends* to give equal opportunity while subtly stacking the deck for or against one or more groups.
Well, yes, you accuse anybody of racism who doesn't subscribe to your twisted racial ideologies
Since it seems you don't read or recall your own statements, I can't be sure you read or understand mine. FYI, in this discussion, there's one person who was calling the other racist on several occasions right from the start, and then hilariously stated that (paraphrasing) "when I said racist, I didn't mean racist, but rather race-ist".
Can't wait for you next kneeslapper, it's been a tiring couple of weeks and I could use the laugh.
In different words, I frankly don't care anymore whether people like you call me a racist, a misogynist, or a homophobe. You have misused and tainted those terms to the point that they have become meaningless.
Say what?? I've definitely implied that you have racist viewpoints ( that you may or may not be capable of distinguishing ) but you were the one who was quickest to fling epithets, with some gusto I might add.
I can only assume that the other insults came from arguments with other and I don't have the time or the inclination to find out if you're deserving of them. But I can say that you clearly show a wide streak of what you so readily want to smear me with.
You're right: those systems of human ownership weren't ended by civil wars, they were ended by revolutions
And the "Revolutionary" War could have accomplished that in America if only all the rebellious colonists had been able to bridge the moral & logical contradiction of casting of their own chains while keeping the yoke firmly on the necks of the black Africans that their British masters forced into permanent hereditary slavery.
Furthermore, the vast majority of white Americans today are descendants of people who either fought slavery or had nothing to do with slavery at all. Even if the concept of inherited guilt were valid, the vast majority of white Americans have inherited no guilt related to slavery.
African-Americans continued to be a social underclass long after the end of the Civil War and the vast majority of white Americans were either willing participants in racial discrimination or complicit. I guess not everyone could be as resolute as the Quakers, even after a century.
European revolutions were motivated by self-interest of the oppressed, often related to starvation and brutal oppression. In the US, the vast majority of Union soldiers were volunteers, making personal sacrifices in order to liberate oppressed people in the South. Which one is more noble? Putting your life at risk because you want to improve your own situation, or putting your life at risk to help others?
I'd like to believe that was the primary motivation for the Union but even a cursory glance at the history raises so many questions. Why were black soldiers paid less? There were a couple hundred thousand, not the most numerous contingent but as many as any of the largest minority groups such as the Irish or Germans.
Why were black soldiers in segregated units even when white officers were in charge and why did this persist so long, even after WW2?
Why were they excluded from the victory parade?
Fortunately, most Americans are not your kind of evil bastard who thinks that individual rights are things granted by majority whim. Most people in the US still realize that the US is a society based on laws and the protection of individual liberties, even for individuals that one disagrees with.
Again, the history shows clearly that the "protection of individual liberties" has been selectively applied for a long time and until quite recently.
Democrats and progressives have a long history of racism and that that history continues today.
That is equally true of Republicans and conservatives - you just have to listen closely when they speak.
What we need is equal protection under the law, nothing more, and we got that
Only if equal protection means equal ENFORCEMENT; getting to that point for all social classes & minorities has been a long fight, not yet over.
As you are well aware, I'm referring to the people on the grand jury - their bias is probably more complicated than just black / white or Republican / Democrat
There's not a country called Africa and the types and status of slaves there were makes for considerable complexity given the size and diversity of the continent but in most cases there was greater hope and status for slaves and their children were not usually condemned to a life of slavery themselves.
That said, some practices were much more barbaric and American slaves didn't usually have to fear castration like the "China birds" or ritual sacrifice.
The Founding Fathers could have set the slaves free; the fact that they chose not to do so is not the fault of the British and was a clear moral failure.
The inhabitants of the country of "Africa" didn't have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights or a Biblical exhortation to love thy neighbor.
And while many countries wrestled with the question of slavery for a long time, I can't think of any other in Europe or the Western Hemisphere that required a rather un-Civil War to settle the question.
No, I don't believe that social progress only occurs through government action but at some point, it needs the support of law.
The gay community is far too small to prevail through its own efforts - it needs the support & compassion of others if it wants to live openly. If the 310+ million non-gay Americans decided tomorrow to reinstitute slavery but only for the non-hetero population, there's fuck-all you could do to stop them solely through the strength of the LGBT community.
To this day, I still encounter people who think that all homosexuals should have been destroyed because they perceive AIDS as the fault of super-fornicating fags in bathhouses and there are still prisons in the USA where HIV+ people are lumped into "ghettos".
Hmmph, I've never met an independent who so indulges in continuous demagoguery that the ills of American society are the fault of "Democrats & progressives".
It could very well be that both sides are "irrationally biased". The unwillingness of people to vote in a free society has always bothered me and it's very troubling if Ferguson's participation is that low. On the bright side for you, they're aren't helping those race-baiting progressives & Democrats.
The fleeing felon rule isn't the automatic death sentence it used to be and hasn't been for 30 years. Mike Brown's case could be justified based on what happened at the police vehicle but Wilson is the only account we have, and the evidence isn't entirely conclusive.
I don't know where your family fled persecution from or why but you said I shouldn't care so I'll take you at your word.
But the ancestors of African-Americans didn't flee or immigrate, they were dragged kicking and screaming INTO persecution and not just for a single lifetime. And while slavery is a distant memory, persecution / segregation / etc. isn't.
I don't think that every problem in the black community is someone else's fault but to sweep the history under the rug is disingenuous.
America proudly celebrates its history and traditions as defining its identity & character, loudly & proudly. Race relations is an integral part of that history, too - with blacks, natives, minorities in general.
As a gay man, do you give credit to anyone for your ability to live your life openly, assuming you do?
I don't know how much of that can be credited to conservatives & the GOP. Since you're much closer to the rightwing political machine who are apparently free of racial divisiveness, perhaps you can get Rick Santorum to answer a couple questions.
First is, who exactly are the "blah people"? Second, what did he mean by " "We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like – the anti-war government nig , er, America was a source for division around the world, that what we were doing was wrong"
I'm still mystified by what that was all about and this guy is no lightweight - he could well be a top contender again in the 2016 presidential race.
I leave it up to you if you choose to mention that you're gay, given his past comments. It made little difference to me; perhaps this political leader of the GOP has......"evolved?"
By the way, whatever happened to GOProud?
"I don't see why spawning would have any bearing on things" - REALLY??
Go introduce your genetically male parent as your mom and see how he & everyone else reacts.
It should be perfectly acceptable for you or anyone to do that if you've had a close, loving, nurturing relationship with him - regardless of his genitalia.
If both parents are like that, then, congrats, you have two moms.
I wanted to know how to votes were cast to see if the GRAND JURY might have made their decision because of racial bias - by either side. This is still very much a factor, even in the 21st century.
As I said before a 12-0, 50-50, or 8-4 in favor of trial or a 9 against (white) vs 3 in favor (black) gives a fair bit of info into how the jury was thinking and their leanings & bias. Lawyers put a lot of emphasis on the jury selection process; since there are no lawyers present at grand jury proceedings, I don't know if the jury is screened at all for bias.
Those people in the street weren't protesting because of being whipped up by the mainstream media or the progressives or the Democrats; they were there because it's a regular part of their reality going back generations. It may be better than the bad old days but it's still very much the norm.
And even if you argue that Mike Brown had it coming, you can't say that about every one of their dead kids & relatives. Did Tamir Rice have it coming? Or Akai Gurley? Or Aiyana Jones? Or Amadou Diallo? Or Sean Bell? At least some of these went to trial even if no officer was ever convicted.
There are thousands of stories like this; citizens want the people they pay to protect & serve to be accountable.
Going to court may not be pleasant but we make hundreds of thousands of innocents submit to it all the time, for things as bad or much less so than ending a life.
Despite what happened or who may be at fault or who had the right to shoot whom, it's Mike Brown who's dead, not Darren Wilson - a fact that the prosecutor forgot when he was supposed to be advocating for the victim.
Let's say, strictly for argument sake's, that Wilson had immediately realized that Brown was the thief and ordered him on the ground and Brown complied.
Then Wilson decides to teach the strongarm thieving thug a lesson about pushing around weaker people and starts kicking the shit out of him.
Brown then bulks up to get through the barrage of kicks & blows and delivers a haymaker with his full Hulk Hogan demon power and kills Wilson with one punch.
How likely is it that Brown doesn't have to go to trial and the case against him is thrown out by the grand jury?
"but it simply doesn't fit history or political reality" - I suspect you're much younger than I.
If you go back and look at the voting on LBJs Civil Rights Act, you'll see that the split on Yea / Nay was very much a North vs South and not so much Dem vs GOP.
That said, at the time, the South was very much a Democrat stronghold. Times have turned and so have cloaks.
And you're still very reactionary but I imagine namecalling makes you feel better.
"She" used to be Bill, with facial hair and (presumably) male genitalia. How do you refer to someone who was male, fathered children, but is now female?
How do their kids introduce them?
"This is my dad, who's now my mother's wife?" If the couple stay married, does that make the original female of the pair a defacto lesbian?
The grand jury does NOT decide on guilt or innocence. Their job is to decide if there's sufficient probable cause to proceed to trial.
What's interesting is that the prosecutor was almost acting as the defence for Officer Wilson, which is not his role.
Do I know if Wilson is guilty? Nope - but there are enough questionable aspects to his description of events that I'd like to see him answer under cross-examination.
I'm been having a hard time with Wilson's story, too. And I'm not the only one.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/...
How is Brown "leaning" into the cop car? If Wilson is in the driver seat, there's no room for anyone's body to come through the window, especially not as big a person as Brown.
And the photos of Wilson's "injuries"? If he can take several punches from an almost 300 lb Hulk Hogan-like "demon" and come out looking like that, he should consider professional boxing. He should have had massive swelling.
That still means that 70% of the time, the perps that cops are arresting are WHITE (or Hispanic?)
Well, in your defence, "she" wasn't always thus - "her" name until 2003 was Bill (William Salvador) Heineman, something of a legend in the gaming industry, going back to winning the 1st ever national video game contest - Atari's National Space Invaders Championship of November 1980.
You're correct - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
S/he was born William Salvador Heineman
If you think the problem is only "Democrats & progressives", your eyes haven't been opened - you've merely changed the tint of your glasses.
Having read some of your other comments, I strongly discourage you from using "objectively" unless you're being ironic.
If it was a simple matter of lies on mortgage applications, the crising would have happened a long time ago.
And it wasn't deadbeats who were responsible for repackaging risky mortgages into MBSes & CDOs.
Subprime lending has been under 8% for decades so a sudden doubling, nearly tripling in the space of 2 years should have been a HUGE red flag.
You can tell all the lies you want on a mortgage application but every bank I've ever dealt with puts a hell of a lot of emphasis on the FICO score.
There have been times in my life when my credit was poor and any loan application during that period was either denied outright or required a suitable guarantor.
"Racist thinking like mine" - you have no idea what I think and showed the own reactionary racist lurking in your skin by being shockingly quick to call me a racist because I wanted to know if the grand jury voted on racial lines, something a number of people would have been curious about, whatever their leanings.
But it's telling that you smear modern Democrats with policies that they've long since discarded, at great political cost.
Passing the Civil Rights Act cost Democrats the Solid South as LBJ feared and that worked very well to Nixon's advantage with his Southern Strategy - which has lasted to this day. If you're searching for the old racists Democrats you miss so much, you're looking in the wrong place - they've long been comfortably clad in Republican clothing.
I must say you were very quick to play the racist card - almost reactionary of you :-)
So? The country is a lot less rural than it used to be and I've already pointed out that most families have more than one vehicle.
Also, maybe farm country can use all those wind turbines to power their "little e-cars".
I'm someone who doesn't live in the rightwing fantasy that America is post-racial.