So, your defense of the current administration boils down to "Bush was worse". That is a terrible defense of the indefensible. You cannot defend bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
My question is, if your kid was caught kicking the shit out of some other kid, would you accept "but he did it too, but worse" as an excuse?
They are banning the internet, because it has dangerous ideas on it. They are just starting small (Porn First, then Guns). In addition, these people that support this kind of stuff are promoting Censorship. As good liberals, this should send shivers up their spines.
It is like this: Clubs and hammers kill more people in the USA than Rifles do. However, Rifles are big, loud, scary things while hammer and clubs are not. Therefore we go after Rifles rather than the criminals.
What the government has done is said "The internet is illegal, because you can learn how to do things we do not approve of". This is tyranny.
I'm not sure what the color of skin has to do with anything. Could you elaborate?
Personally, I think smoking crack is fairly stupid thing to do, and anyone smoking crack should be tossed out of office with as little dignity as possible. Regardless of whether or not it is legal. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to see him treated exactly the same ways a Barry was. As for criminal charges, I stated my opinion on this already.
But if they had, Obama would have taken all the credit for it, right? Because the (R) can never do good, and a (D) can never do bad in your world... right? I'm just waiting till some Libtard tries to blame the IRS scandal on GWB. Oh wait, already happened....
Personally, both presidents are(were) awful. Both have eroded Liberties in such a way that short of tossing out both (D) and (R) congress critters and replacing them with (L) and (G) people, they (Liberties) won't come back any time soon. It seems like the American People love their nanny state, and being protected by the evil boogie men.
Subsidies to oil companies? You mean "tax breaks" for Depreciation and Exploration, which are not the same thing. The government does not send money to the Big Oil Companies. In fact, the government makes more on every gallon of fuel than the Oil Companies. The whole "Subsidies" line is a load of crap created by the Greenies and Left to make it seem like Government is paying oil companies money, when the reality is exactly the opposite by a large margin.
As a Fiscal Conservative Libertarian, I don't want the government picking winners and losers, because it becomes a fertile ground for handing out goodies to campaign contributes, while punishing people who vote against you. IF you think this is a good idea, you're part of the problem of the corruption that both the (D) and (R) participate in.
Elon Musk, Solyndra et al should have to compete with other good ideas for money. It might take a tad longer to secure funds, but caution should be exercised in fiscal matters.
That being said, I also agree with Tesla's argument that they shouldn't be required to have third party dealerships to sell cars. The problem with old laws is that they remain long past their usefulness, and never get retired. I would suggest that we have sunset clauses on all laws, that they have to be voted on to extend. New laws have short Extentions (1 year, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, permanent) . Only when a law proves itself standing past the test of time should it become permanent. Most laws are to solve some sort of temporary "new" thing. (However, that being said, these things probably shouldn't be a "law" to start with, but that is a whole other discussion)
My guess, is she ignored the warning signs or had enough self esteem issues. These things typically just "happen" in a vacuum.
This is (one of the reasons) why I tell my daughters that they should be very careful when dating. Because if you sleep with a stalker, they will stalk you.
I never said I didn't believe in or believed in AGW. What I said was that the Kyoto Accord was based on the same kind of science and Piltdown man. I suggest you google it. Kyoto was based on the flawed and flat out fabricated information coming out of the U.E.A. Doesn't mean U.E.A was wrong, it also doesn't mean they are right.
And I'm opposed to the Kyoto Treaty based on other reasons. It excuses or doesn't affect the people that are actually causing the most harm to the environment, namely many third world countries and China. It is a tax on Western Countries. Further, a country does NOT need to sign the Kyoto Accord to start reducing Greenhouse Gasses or do any of the other things in Kyoto Accord. Lastly, without alternative energy sources that rival high energy dense fuels, like coal, natural gas, or Oil, Kyoto will require dramatic changes our societies are not ready for. (I suggest looking into Thorium Nuclear technology).
The only thing Kyoto does is make the USA (and any other signatory) answerable to a bunch of petty bureaucrats from places I don't trust.
Daily Mail and Breitbart are more trustworthy than MSNBC or CNN these days, simply because they post news and analysis nobody else will. Sorry, the MSM is in the tank for the administration doesn't help your case. You may not like the political bent, but facts are facts, and if you're not getting all of them, you're being lied to.
Something "based on science" isn't Science. It is something "based on science". I can be against Kyoto accord (policy) for reasons other than the "science" behind it (policy). This is something liberals cannot fathom.
Kyoto Accord has about the same amount of science behind it as does the Piltdown Man did. Remember, Piltdown man was accepted as "science" for years and many PhD in sciences were awarded to people who did their Thesis on it. Just because Science claims something doesn't mean it is true.
Funny, the current Administration sure is ignorant about a great number of important topics. The amount of "I know nothing" coming out of DC the last two weeks rivals Sgt. Schultz
Not all tyranny comes from a single despotic ruler. Tyranny is when the people fear their government. I fear my government more than I fear my neighbor. THAT is tyranny. Perhaps not rising to the level of a single all powerful tyrant (North Korea), but tyranny none the less.
In case you don't read the related WIKIPEDIA article, the rates mentioned are per capita (100,000) The difference is.2 per 100,000 people. Access to guns doesn't affect actual suicide rates. Period.
So, how does one like yourself figure that suicide rates are comparable between countries that have no access to guns and those that do? Like USA vs UK?
The only conclusion is that people comitting suicide will commit suicide using other means, and guns are only a tool. Would you be willing to include suicide by pill in an effort to ban medicine, by counting those deaths in analysis of effective medicine?
As for my "lie" about suicide statistics just look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
34 United States[25] (more info) 19.5 5.5 12.0 2009 38 United Kingdom (more info) 23 11.8 2011
The UK, with strict gun control laws has a statistical blip difference in suicide rates(12.0 vs 11.8). Claiming "easy access to guns" attributes to increased suicide rates is in fact flawed.
For someone that cries "lie", I'm not sure you understand what that is. Your cry of "lie" is itself a "lie" of ignorance. There is no appreciable difference to having access to guns and the rates of suicide. People bent on killing themselves will kill themselves, at the same rate, regardless of access to guns. Basically you are making the argument, not based on facts, but your feelings of what the facts should be.
"*The higher the bar to entry, the fewer suicide, and that bar to entry doesn't have to be very high to cut suicide rates in half." -- not actually true. More of an opinion stated as fact, which is not actually borne out in the data on suicide rates among countries with gun control vs lack of gun control. Facts are facts, and cannot be opinionated away because they are inconvenient.
Interestingly enough, they (liberals) count suicide as a "gun crime", or "gun violence" or whatever, so they can vastly inflate the numbers of actual gun crimes. Some 60% of all gun deaths are suicide. Another interesting fact, suicides in the US, per capita, is very similar (statistical blip) to countries with strict gun controls, which only prove that suicidal people will kill themselves, regardless of method.
All of this doesn't matter, because "guns are scary" (tm)
Slashdot Mirror
So, your defense of the current administration boils down to "Bush was worse". That is a terrible defense of the indefensible. You cannot defend bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
My question is, if your kid was caught kicking the shit out of some other kid, would you accept "but he did it too, but worse" as an excuse?
They are banning the internet, because it has dangerous ideas on it. They are just starting small (Porn First, then Guns). In addition, these people that support this kind of stuff are promoting Censorship. As good liberals, this should send shivers up their spines.
It is like this: Clubs and hammers kill more people in the USA than Rifles do. However, Rifles are big, loud, scary things while hammer and clubs are not. Therefore we go after Rifles rather than the criminals.
What the government has done is said "The internet is illegal, because you can learn how to do things we do not approve of". This is tyranny.
I'm not sure what the color of skin has to do with anything. Could you elaborate?
Personally, I think smoking crack is fairly stupid thing to do, and anyone smoking crack should be tossed out of office with as little dignity as possible. Regardless of whether or not it is legal. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to see him treated exactly the same ways a Barry was. As for criminal charges, I stated my opinion on this already.
But if they had, Obama would have taken all the credit for it, right? Because the (R) can never do good, and a (D) can never do bad in your world ... right? I'm just waiting till some Libtard tries to blame the IRS scandal on GWB. Oh wait, already happened ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/nancy-pelosi-george-bush_n_3326029.html
Personally, both presidents are(were) awful. Both have eroded Liberties in such a way that short of tossing out both (D) and (R) congress critters and replacing them with (L) and (G) people, they (Liberties) won't come back any time soon. It seems like the American People love their nanny state, and being protected by the evil boogie men.
Mayor's smoke crack. Barry and now this clown. Yawn. Make drugs legal already.
I have no sons, you insensitive clod.
But if I did, I would.
Subsidies to oil companies? You mean "tax breaks" for Depreciation and Exploration, which are not the same thing. The government does not send money to the Big Oil Companies. In fact, the government makes more on every gallon of fuel than the Oil Companies. The whole "Subsidies" line is a load of crap created by the Greenies and Left to make it seem like Government is paying oil companies money, when the reality is exactly the opposite by a large margin.
As a Fiscal Conservative Libertarian, I don't want the government picking winners and losers, because it becomes a fertile ground for handing out goodies to campaign contributes, while punishing people who vote against you. IF you think this is a good idea, you're part of the problem of the corruption that both the (D) and (R) participate in.
Elon Musk, Solyndra et al should have to compete with other good ideas for money. It might take a tad longer to secure funds, but caution should be exercised in fiscal matters.
That being said, I also agree with Tesla's argument that they shouldn't be required to have third party dealerships to sell cars. The problem with old laws is that they remain long past their usefulness, and never get retired. I would suggest that we have sunset clauses on all laws, that they have to be voted on to extend. New laws have short Extentions (1 year, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, permanent) . Only when a law proves itself standing past the test of time should it become permanent. Most laws are to solve some sort of temporary "new" thing. (However, that being said, these things probably shouldn't be a "law" to start with, but that is a whole other discussion)
No, the ORIGINAL Kyoto Treaty was based on the falsified and erroneous information from the U.E.A.
Piltdown Man was used to prove Evolution.
Made up facts were used to prove AGW (for Kyoto).
See my point. Piltdown man did not prove Evolution because it was fraud, in the same way that UEA fraud didn't prove AGW.
My guess, is she ignored the warning signs or had enough self esteem issues. These things typically just "happen" in a vacuum.
This is (one of the reasons) why I tell my daughters that they should be very careful when dating. Because if you sleep with a stalker, they will stalk you.
Oh, I wish I had mod point!
I never said I didn't believe in or believed in AGW. What I said was that the Kyoto Accord was based on the same kind of science and Piltdown man. I suggest you google it. Kyoto was based on the flawed and flat out fabricated information coming out of the U.E.A. Doesn't mean U.E.A was wrong, it also doesn't mean they are right.
And I'm opposed to the Kyoto Treaty based on other reasons. It excuses or doesn't affect the people that are actually causing the most harm to the environment, namely many third world countries and China. It is a tax on Western Countries. Further, a country does NOT need to sign the Kyoto Accord to start reducing Greenhouse Gasses or do any of the other things in Kyoto Accord. Lastly, without alternative energy sources that rival high energy dense fuels, like coal, natural gas, or Oil, Kyoto will require dramatic changes our societies are not ready for. (I suggest looking into Thorium Nuclear technology).
The only thing Kyoto does is make the USA (and any other signatory) answerable to a bunch of petty bureaucrats from places I don't trust.
Is that anti Science enough for you?
As for HuffPo or John Stewart, just taking a jab at the typical Lib that gets their info from these "reliable sources" ;)
Daily Mail and Breitbart are more trustworthy than MSNBC or CNN these days, simply because they post news and analysis nobody else will. Sorry, the MSM is in the tank for the administration doesn't help your case. You may not like the political bent, but facts are facts, and if you're not getting all of them, you're being lied to.
Something "based on science" isn't Science. It is something "based on science". I can be against Kyoto accord (policy) for reasons other than the "science" behind it (policy). This is something liberals cannot fathom.
Kyoto Accord has about the same amount of science behind it as does the Piltdown Man did. Remember, Piltdown man was accepted as "science" for years and many PhD in sciences were awarded to people who did their Thesis on it. Just because Science claims something doesn't mean it is true.
Funny, the current Administration sure is ignorant about a great number of important topics. The amount of "I know nothing" coming out of DC the last two weeks rivals Sgt. Schultz
says the AC who reads HuffPo and gets news from John Stewart.
Not all tyranny comes from a single despotic ruler. Tyranny is when the people fear their government. I fear my government more than I fear my neighbor. THAT is tyranny. Perhaps not rising to the level of a single all powerful tyrant (North Korea), but tyranny none the less.
In case you don't read the related WIKIPEDIA article, the rates mentioned are per capita (100,000) The difference is .2 per 100,000 people. Access to guns doesn't affect actual suicide rates. Period.
So, how does one like yourself figure that suicide rates are comparable between countries that have no access to guns and those that do? Like USA vs UK?
The only conclusion is that people comitting suicide will commit suicide using other means, and guns are only a tool. Would you be willing to include suicide by pill in an effort to ban medicine, by counting those deaths in analysis of effective medicine?
As for my "lie" about suicide statistics just look here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
34 United States[25] (more info) 19.5 5.5 12.0 2009
38 United Kingdom (more info) 23 11.8 2011
The UK, with strict gun control laws has a statistical blip difference in suicide rates(12.0 vs 11.8). Claiming "easy access to guns" attributes to increased suicide rates is in fact flawed.
For someone that cries "lie", I'm not sure you understand what that is. Your cry of "lie" is itself a "lie" of ignorance. There is no appreciable difference to having access to guns and the rates of suicide. People bent on killing themselves will kill themselves, at the same rate, regardless of access to guns. Basically you are making the argument, not based on facts, but your feelings of what the facts should be.
"*The higher the bar to entry, the fewer suicide, and that bar to entry doesn't have to be very high to cut suicide rates in half." -- not actually true. More of an opinion stated as fact, which is not actually borne out in the data on suicide rates among countries with gun control vs lack of gun control. Facts are facts, and cannot be opinionated away because they are inconvenient.
Nice try though.
"Are Irish spuds as highly radioactive as Idaho spuds?"
What do you mean? Russet or Yukon Gold?
You're completely guessing about a very small number of actual cases, and extrapolating to the whole of the problem. Good luck with reality.
Interestingly enough, they (liberals) count suicide as a "gun crime", or "gun violence" or whatever, so they can vastly inflate the numbers of actual gun crimes. Some 60% of all gun deaths are suicide. Another interesting fact, suicides in the US, per capita, is very similar (statistical blip) to countries with strict gun controls, which only prove that suicidal people will kill themselves, regardless of method.
All of this doesn't matter, because "guns are scary" (tm)