To many, it means the freedom to worship Allah without being offended by anybody.
For example, that Mohammed cartoon violated their freedom. Seeking to have it suppressed did not violate the author's freedom, since freedom of speech is defined within the framework of what is acceptable to Allah.
The size of a rally is irrelevant when public opinion polling shows that the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism and support coexistence.
Links, please. Of course we have an issue of level of coexistence. I take it you mean absolutely equal, all considerations for one given to the other? All rights respected? Remember, Rauf does not believe in American freedom of speech.
I'm not Arab, and the Saudi king doesn't speak for me
It's not the Saudi king who decides, but the Muslim religious leaders.The king is not all powerful, and must bow to their decisions on many issues or risk a revolt. If you believe a church, synagogue and temple should be able to stand in Mecca, you will be the first Muslim I've met with that opinion.
I go to a mosque in New York that's in the basement of a Catholic church.
Very considerate of those Christians. Ever heard of a church in the basement of a mosque? Even Rauf doesn't believe in reciprocating in that manner.
and there are scathing denunciations in the press and large anti-terrorism rallies by the publics
I remember a while back in London that one famous anti-militant imam (ul-Qadri?) held a rally where a few thousand showed up.
Of course, at the same time there were pro-terrorism rallies across the country, dwarfing his. For every one of him, there are probably several examples of Anjem Choudary. Even people who constantly preach peace like Feisal Rauf are Hezbollah sympathizers, since they see them as part of a "trend towards Islamic law and justice."
I will believe this whole platform of "Islam is peace" and "Islam wants to peacefully coexist with Christianity" when there is a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue and a Buddhist temple in Mecca. Until then, it's just blowing smoke.
Mexican border state presidents know a whole lot about Mexico because they have to deal with Mexico. Alaska has a lot of direct dealings with Russia, especially in gas and fishing, so the Alaskan governor would know a lot about dealing with Russia.
The "You can see" comment is to help the morons out there who don't know geography realize that the US and Russia are almost as close as Mexico.
A lot of the crime in the Muslim world is blamed on Islam in places like Fox News, although it has almost no bearing.
Crime not related to Islam rarely hits our news anyway. But Fox isn't exactly a bastion of responsible journalism. On the other hand, you can count on them to report the non-PC stories that others often won't.
Plenty of Pakistan's internal turmoil is little different than Mexico's killing sprees, but one is blamed on religion and the other is not.
One is often based on religion and the other isn't. I have an ex-Muslim Pakistani friend here in the US exactly because of the religious violence there.
Muslims are aghast at the violence committed by extremists and hold press conferences and issue loud denunciations, but for some reason their narrative is ignored.
Probably because the number of Muslims who commit the violence is quite large, the number of those who support the violence is much larger, the number who are willing to passively accept the violence is even vastly larger, and those who publicly condemn it are relatively few. And even among groups who publicly condemn it we see that it is sometimes a PR sham, as they silently support terrorist groups at the same time (*cough* CAIR *cough*).
It's like how Terry Jones' or Fred Phelps' religion isn't mentioned
I see both of their religions mentioned, although remember that the Phelps clan rarely if ever brakes any laws. In fact, they're mainly funded through winning lawsuits against cities who violate their rights during legal protests. Also, I have yet to find one established church that endorses the Phelps clan's interpretation of Christianity.
Fun fact: Right wing Christians were pretty much silent on the Phelps clan while they were mainly picketing gay funerals. This is equivalent to the passive acceptance of Muslim violence above, except that the Phelps clan never commits violence. They didn't get indignant and denounce Phelps until his inbred freak show started picketing soldier funerals.
Another fun fact: The Phelps clan was a supporter of Al Gore, even helped with his campaign and ran fundraisers, back when Gore opposed gay rights legislation in the 80s. There are some nice photos with them all friendly together.
That these people weren't Christian has been answered, but it doesn't matter. Motive matters in a crime story, and any reasonable person would have the motive prominent in the story. In fact, the press makes up motives where no immediate apparent one exists (Sarah Palin's map making Loughner shoot Giffords).
These guys didn't commit their crimes because of Christian motives, so it is reasonable that Christianity wouldn't be mentioned. But these Muslims are doing it because they are part of a large Muslim movement that believes Allah instructs them to do it. Their motive is closely intertwined with their religion -- in fact there is no rational motive without their religion -- so the religion should be prominent in the story.
Make it simple:
Muslim robs a gas station with no mention of religion. There is no need for the press to mention his religion, and mentioning it could be considered unnecessarily inflammatory.
Muslim plans to bomb a government building, stating he wants to strike at "the enemies of Allah." Islam is now central to the story, and not mentioning it is an abdication of journalistic integrity.
Having a hunting camp on your property called "Niggerhead" isn't good enough for you?
One, it's not his property. That parcel is not owned by him, but has been leased for hunting by his family since the 80s.
Two, that's not even the name of the parcel. The larger land area, not owned or leased by the Perrys, containing that parcel has been called "Niggerhead" since, well, a very long time.
Three, "niggerhead" was a popular name for sites throughout the country. Since the 60s the names have been slowly changed. There's still an island off Australia by that name. You much for trying to erase history due to PC concerns?
Four, despite the fact that Perry's family alternately either turned over the rock and had the word painted over, some people around there still call the place by its original name.
At most this amounts to a lack of being proactively sensitive to the PC concerns of the thin-skinned.
I think the rock with the name should remain, a constant reminder of that county's racist past (it was a "sundown county" -- blacks don't dare be found there after sundown).
And the TPers themselves were more than willing to allow these bimbos to have speeches at their events
Yes, they should let the media lies about two people influence whether those people should speak. BTW, the Tea Party has no central governance to make such politically savvy decisions. It's a grassroots movement with fully independent chapters across the country.
And what stuff about these two bimbos was "made up"?
"I can see Alaska from my house" was promoted as something Palin said instead of the SNL sketch it was. Many of her detractors still believe she said it, and when presented with the fact she didn't, dismisse it.
Palin referenced "Party like it's 1773" and was denounced by the liberal press as ignorant -- didn't she know it's 1776? But that was a Tea Party event, and she was referring to the 1773 Boston Tea Party. They were the ignorant ones, but they spun it as her being ignorant.
Bachmann saying to a crowd "Who likes white people?" was propagated by the liberal press as true. Problem is, she said to a drenched crowd in the rain, "Who likes wet people?"
Just look at how they deal with gaffes. Bachmann made a mistake of the "shot heard around the world" location and was excoriated as a dumb bimbo in the mainstream liberal press. But Obama was virtually given a free pass when he thought Arkansas was closer to Kentucky than Illinois (IL borders KY, AR doesn't). Bachmann mixed up two small far away New England states. Obama didn't even know which states bordered his own. But Bachmann's the idiot?
Tolls originally had a valid reason. The government would purchase a bond to fund the road building, and the tolls would pay off the bond. I have no problem with this, the users of the road pay for their road.
The problem comes after the bond is paid off, the government never likes to give up a source of income that people may not notice. Now they only have to pay a fraction of the toll for road upkeep, and the rest is gravy.
Or even better, instead of paying off the bond with the tolls, they used the money for whatever pet projects they wanted. In either case the toll just becomes another tax.
The press had already successfully demonized Palin and Bachmann (some deservedly, some not, some stuff just made up) in the public's mind.
Those two late-comers to the Tea Party movement wanted Tea Party support to get votes, and the press was more than willing to put their faces on as the national face of the Tea Party in order to further demonize the Tea Party.
Very good point. About 50,000 tons of uranium is mined worldwide in a year vs. over five billion tons of coal. That's a ratio of 1:100,000. Assuming equal death rates for the types of mining, apply that ratio to the number of coal miners killed each year. Death rates are not likely equal, but you see we have a LOT of wiggle room before uranium mining deaths begin to affect the stats at all.
I believe it is per year, for coal, and it includes deaths due to pollution. However, for others like hydro and nuclear deaths happen so rarely I believe that includes averaged historical data or it would be zero for most years. It would be too easy to cherry pick for example hydro, where you have zero deaths per year for years, and one year 171,000 dead due to the failure of one dam system (Banqiao).
But this shows interesting room for improvement. That coal number could come down drastically if all the plants in the world were fitted with efficient scrubbers. These nuclear deaths were due to old, outdated and even flat-out dangerous (in the case of Chernobyl) reactor designs. Decommissioning all unsafe ones (by modern standards) and building modern ones would bring down the nuclear number for the future.
But if you want hard per-year numbers, coal is still the worst with the current yearly mining deaths. Nuclear had a very bad year, killing three. There have only been six direct commercial nuclear power deaths since Chernobyl; interestingly, all have been in Japan.
Strange, in confirming these numbers I found a surprising number of deaths directly related to medical radiotherapy that I'd never heard of before (I knew Therac). I'd have to look, but I think that industry may be more deadly than commercial nuclear power generation.
We have the term because they exist. It wasn't invented. You don't just get welfare. You get Medicaid, WIC, food stamps, help with housing and heating/cooling, and much more. And it is a perpetuating cycle.
Do you think that assistance comes close to covering the cost of raising a child, even raising the child poorly?
Defamation and false advertising are civil matters. Plus, corporations not being completely real people in law (yet), their speech is restricted.
Copyright has constitutional basis, plus Fair Use considers where free speech encroaches on the constitutional monopoly of copyright.
What we're talking about here is criminalization of speech, of opinions. We have very specific tests for attempts to restrict freedom of speech, such as the "imminent lawless action" test, and what these people are talking about fit none of them.
The press generally has the populace believing the Democrats are the party that wants to protect your rights, and the Republicans are the party that wants to restrict your rights. This mistaken belief gets them votes.
This shows the true nature of the beast. They BOTH want to restrict your rights, they just have different areas they want to do it in.
The guy with the loudest voice against racism surged, the guy hit with BS racism claims dropped by almost the same amount.
Cain is still high in the polls, because the last poll was conducted Monday and a large number of GOP voters were either watching Football or fighting dogs instead of watching Fox News
Now you're just getting stupid.
He is also a Republican.
I'm not a Republican, never have been. I almost wish I were so I could vote for Cain in the primary.
Everything you write pretty much backs up why land use is a very poor indicator for energy. Environmental pollution produced, number of people killed, these are good criteria because we care about these things. As you note, there is a LOT of land available, and even our largest projects suggest taking up a tiny percentage of it.
If we decide a dam was a mistake, the flooded land can be drained and used pretty much right away
Not making sense. If you drain it, you no longer get the power. We were talking about land use necessary for actual generation of electricity. Plus it will take many years for the former ecosystem to return.
Even your oil comment wasn't about land USED, but about sea polluted by one accident. And don't forget, in a lot of ways, the cleanup effort for Valdez made things worse. Nature has very good cleaning mechanisms.
But why would you think that makes a good president?
Because both require strong executive skills. Chief Executive Officer, Chief of the Executive Branch. The word "executive" is in there for a reason.
I think that by suggesting that it really isn't OK for Rick Perry to have the word "NIGGER" written on a great big rock in his back yard Herman Cain gave up his shot of winning the GOP nomination.
So let me get your logic straight. The Tea Partiers and Republicans are racist, so Cain by making an anti-racist comment has ruined his chance of the GOP nomination, has been falling out of favor.
Interesting. It seems you think race drives the Republican choice, and they will grant or withdraw support based on views towards racism.
You may like to know Cain is now the frontrunner among Republicans along with Romney with 17 points each. Not only that, but Romney has increased only one point, but Cain has pulled up a dramatic 12 points since this incident and is showing no sign of slowing down.
So by your race-baiting logic, Cain's denouncement of racism has vastly increased his stature among Republicans.
Since you skipped it the first time: War. Was. Never. Declared. Nor. Authorized. For. Yemen.
Since you skipped it the first time, military force was authorized, period, regardless of country. Military action in Yemen, or wherever else, is absolutely legal.
As for the AUMF, was Al-Awlkai involved in the 911 attacks?
Irrelevant. The authorization for use of force is against the organization, which means anyone who is in that organization.
By your absurd logic, Japanese soldiers who weren't involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, which would be most of them, were not legitimate enemy targets in WWII.
The Obama Administration claimed he was promoted to "regional commander", but they could just as easily make the same claim of fascist apologist Quila.
Ludicrous. There is a review process for putting anyone on the hit list. I do not even come close to the requirements (like, I don't know, actively recruiting for Al Qaeda and directing its operations).
I love this total BS, trying to convince people he wasn't Al Qaeda. You just don't like us taking out their operatives for whatever reason, quite possibly sympathy for their cause, and reach for whatever absurdities you can find to try to condemn the legal killing of the enemy in military actions.
If you instead use pollution, as in "area (sq km) of land * years made unusable",
Ridiculous. But let's go with it as a measure of efficiency.
Nuclear - 3800000 (Chernobyl = 2800 sq km, Fukushima = 1000 sq km, land may not be habitable for 1000 years)
First, love the usual vast over-inflation of numbers. 2,800 + 1,000 does not equal 3,800,000.
And you speak of Chernobyl as lost, when in fact it has become Europe's largest wildlife refuge. Environmentalists should love that.
Oil - 2000000 (Deepwater Horizon fouled 10000 sq km of the Gulf of Mexico, may represent half of all oil pollution, effects may last 100 years)
Nature is taking care of that quite well. And looking at the larger picture, the amount of oil spilled was equivalent to putting a couple drops of oil into an olympic-sized swimming pool.
Coal - 100000 (Mining operations have fouled 2000 miles of streams, recovery may take 50 years)
You're probably right there. And don't forget the coal fires. However, the number, as usual, looks vastly inflated.
everything else - nearly 0
Hydroelectric: Massive amounts of land flooded to function, although it does acquire an alternate ecology as Chernobyl did. The top ten dam reservoirs take up over 56,000 square kilometers of area. But this does not count damage to down-river ecosystems, especially deltas. That is compounded since erosion of deltas makes sea erosion worse, and hurricanes more damaging.
Wind and solar: Massive amounts of land required just to function. Wind gives about 3 MW peak per square kilometer. But given how often the wind actually blows strong enough to achieve peak power, 1.5 is a more realistic (although still generous) number.
We have 101,263 MW of nuclear generating capacity and 315,000 MW for coal. You would need 277,508 square kilometers of land to make that up in wind (with my generous number). That's an area a bit bigger than Oregon.
Seriously, you can see smoke, fire, water, air pollution (even from a plants a hundred miles away), a blade flying off, etc. But you can't see radiation, and that scares people.
I was trained to map fallout patterns, radiation levels, optimum time of exit, etc., so it doesn't really scare me. I know what's involved.
Slashdot Mirror
To many, it means the freedom to worship Allah without being offended by anybody.
For example, that Mohammed cartoon violated their freedom. Seeking to have it suppressed did not violate the author's freedom, since freedom of speech is defined within the framework of what is acceptable to Allah.
Links, please. Of course we have an issue of level of coexistence. I take it you mean absolutely equal, all considerations for one given to the other? All rights respected? Remember, Rauf does not believe in American freedom of speech.
It's not the Saudi king who decides, but the Muslim religious leaders.The king is not all powerful, and must bow to their decisions on many issues or risk a revolt. If you believe a church, synagogue and temple should be able to stand in Mecca, you will be the first Muslim I've met with that opinion.
Very considerate of those Christians. Ever heard of a church in the basement of a mosque? Even Rauf doesn't believe in reciprocating in that manner.
I remember a while back in London that one famous anti-militant imam (ul-Qadri?) held a rally where a few thousand showed up.
Of course, at the same time there were pro-terrorism rallies across the country, dwarfing his. For every one of him, there are probably several examples of Anjem Choudary. Even people who constantly preach peace like Feisal Rauf are Hezbollah sympathizers, since they see them as part of a "trend towards Islamic law and justice."
I will believe this whole platform of "Islam is peace" and "Islam wants to peacefully coexist with Christianity" when there is a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue and a Buddhist temple in Mecca. Until then, it's just blowing smoke.
Mexican border state presidents know a whole lot about Mexico because they have to deal with Mexico. Alaska has a lot of direct dealings with Russia, especially in gas and fishing, so the Alaskan governor would know a lot about dealing with Russia.
The "You can see" comment is to help the morons out there who don't know geography realize that the US and Russia are almost as close as Mexico.
"Russia"
But I think you get the point.
Crime not related to Islam rarely hits our news anyway. But Fox isn't exactly a bastion of responsible journalism. On the other hand, you can count on them to report the non-PC stories that others often won't.
One is often based on religion and the other isn't. I have an ex-Muslim Pakistani friend here in the US exactly because of the religious violence there.
Probably because the number of Muslims who commit the violence is quite large, the number of those who support the violence is much larger, the number who are willing to passively accept the violence is even vastly larger, and those who publicly condemn it are relatively few. And even among groups who publicly condemn it we see that it is sometimes a PR sham, as they silently support terrorist groups at the same time (*cough* CAIR *cough*).
I see both of their religions mentioned, although remember that the Phelps clan rarely if ever brakes any laws. In fact, they're mainly funded through winning lawsuits against cities who violate their rights during legal protests. Also, I have yet to find one established church that endorses the Phelps clan's interpretation of Christianity.
Fun fact: Right wing Christians were pretty much silent on the Phelps clan while they were mainly picketing gay funerals. This is equivalent to the passive acceptance of Muslim violence above, except that the Phelps clan never commits violence. They didn't get indignant and denounce Phelps until his inbred freak show started picketing soldier funerals.
Another fun fact: The Phelps clan was a supporter of Al Gore, even helped with his campaign and ran fundraisers, back when Gore opposed gay rights legislation in the 80s. There are some nice photos with them all friendly together.
That these people weren't Christian has been answered, but it doesn't matter. Motive matters in a crime story, and any reasonable person would have the motive prominent in the story. In fact, the press makes up motives where no immediate apparent one exists (Sarah Palin's map making Loughner shoot Giffords).
These guys didn't commit their crimes because of Christian motives, so it is reasonable that Christianity wouldn't be mentioned. But these Muslims are doing it because they are part of a large Muslim movement that believes Allah instructs them to do it. Their motive is closely intertwined with their religion -- in fact there is no rational motive without their religion -- so the religion should be prominent in the story.
Make it simple:
Muslim robs a gas station with no mention of religion. There is no need for the press to mention his religion, and mentioning it could be considered unnecessarily inflammatory.
Muslim plans to bomb a government building, stating he wants to strike at "the enemies of Allah." Islam is now central to the story, and not mentioning it is an abdication of journalistic integrity.
Unfortunately, that abdication is common.
One, it's not his property. That parcel is not owned by him, but has been leased for hunting by his family since the 80s.
Two, that's not even the name of the parcel. The larger land area, not owned or leased by the Perrys, containing that parcel has been called "Niggerhead" since, well, a very long time.
Three, "niggerhead" was a popular name for sites throughout the country. Since the 60s the names have been slowly changed. There's still an island off Australia by that name. You much for trying to erase history due to PC concerns?
Four, despite the fact that Perry's family alternately either turned over the rock and had the word painted over, some people around there still call the place by its original name.
At most this amounts to a lack of being proactively sensitive to the PC concerns of the thin-skinned.
I think the rock with the name should remain, a constant reminder of that county's racist past (it was a "sundown county" -- blacks don't dare be found there after sundown).
Yes, they should let the media lies about two people influence whether those people should speak. BTW, the Tea Party has no central governance to make such politically savvy decisions. It's a grassroots movement with fully independent chapters across the country.
"I can see Alaska from my house" was promoted as something Palin said instead of the SNL sketch it was. Many of her detractors still believe she said it, and when presented with the fact she didn't, dismisse it.
Palin referenced "Party like it's 1773" and was denounced by the liberal press as ignorant -- didn't she know it's 1776? But that was a Tea Party event, and she was referring to the 1773 Boston Tea Party. They were the ignorant ones, but they spun it as her being ignorant.
Bachmann saying to a crowd "Who likes white people?" was propagated by the liberal press as true. Problem is, she said to a drenched crowd in the rain, "Who likes wet people?"
Just look at how they deal with gaffes. Bachmann made a mistake of the "shot heard around the world" location and was excoriated as a dumb bimbo in the mainstream liberal press. But Obama was virtually given a free pass when he thought Arkansas was closer to Kentucky than Illinois (IL borders KY, AR doesn't). Bachmann mixed up two small far away New England states. Obama didn't even know which states bordered his own. But Bachmann's the idiot?
Tolls originally had a valid reason. The government would purchase a bond to fund the road building, and the tolls would pay off the bond. I have no problem with this, the users of the road pay for their road.
The problem comes after the bond is paid off, the government never likes to give up a source of income that people may not notice. Now they only have to pay a fraction of the toll for road upkeep, and the rest is gravy.
Or even better, instead of paying off the bond with the tolls, they used the money for whatever pet projects they wanted. In either case the toll just becomes another tax.
The press had already successfully demonized Palin and Bachmann (some deservedly, some not, some stuff just made up) in the public's mind.
Those two late-comers to the Tea Party movement wanted Tea Party support to get votes, and the press was more than willing to put their faces on as the national face of the Tea Party in order to further demonize the Tea Party.
Very good point. About 50,000 tons of uranium is mined worldwide in a year vs. over five billion tons of coal. That's a ratio of 1:100,000. Assuming equal death rates for the types of mining, apply that ratio to the number of coal miners killed each year. Death rates are not likely equal, but you see we have a LOT of wiggle room before uranium mining deaths begin to affect the stats at all.
I believe it is per year, for coal, and it includes deaths due to pollution. However, for others like hydro and nuclear deaths happen so rarely I believe that includes averaged historical data or it would be zero for most years. It would be too easy to cherry pick for example hydro, where you have zero deaths per year for years, and one year 171,000 dead due to the failure of one dam system (Banqiao).
But this shows interesting room for improvement. That coal number could come down drastically if all the plants in the world were fitted with efficient scrubbers. These nuclear deaths were due to old, outdated and even flat-out dangerous (in the case of Chernobyl) reactor designs. Decommissioning all unsafe ones (by modern standards) and building modern ones would bring down the nuclear number for the future.
But if you want hard per-year numbers, coal is still the worst with the current yearly mining deaths. Nuclear had a very bad year, killing three. There have only been six direct commercial nuclear power deaths since Chernobyl; interestingly, all have been in Japan.
Strange, in confirming these numbers I found a surprising number of deaths directly related to medical radiotherapy that I'd never heard of before (I knew Therac). I'd have to look, but I think that industry may be more deadly than commercial nuclear power generation.
We have the term because they exist. It wasn't invented. You don't just get welfare. You get Medicaid, WIC, food stamps, help with housing and heating/cooling, and much more. And it is a perpetuating cycle.
You apparently don't know how to play the system.
Defamation and false advertising are civil matters. Plus, corporations not being completely real people in law (yet), their speech is restricted.
Copyright has constitutional basis, plus Fair Use considers where free speech encroaches on the constitutional monopoly of copyright.
What we're talking about here is criminalization of speech, of opinions. We have very specific tests for attempts to restrict freedom of speech, such as the "imminent lawless action" test, and what these people are talking about fit none of them.
I got fed up, snapped, and tried to kill a bully using classroom equipment at hand that could be quickly "weaponized."
Fellow classmates stopped me just short of my target, but I was never picked on after that, not even a mean look.
Oh, and do it when the teacher is out of the room.
The press generally has the populace believing the Democrats are the party that wants to protect your rights, and the Republicans are the party that wants to restrict your rights. This mistaken belief gets them votes.
This shows the true nature of the beast. They BOTH want to restrict your rights, they just have different areas they want to do it in.
They believe that the right to keep and bear arms is, uniquely in the Bill of Rights, a collective right rather than an individual one.
If they can have that interpretation for the 2nd, why not the 1st?
Has he been the head of a large, complex organization?
Breitbart still has his bounty out for evidence of Tea Party racism. Nobody's claimed it yet. Sorry, you way overplayed the race card on this one.
Strange, for a party founded on the elimination of slavery in opposition to the pro-slavery Democrats.
No, yours are. As of yesterday, compared to two weeks ago, it's:
Romney: 17 (1% rise)
Cain: 17 (12% rise)
Perry: 12 (11% drop)
The guy with the loudest voice against racism surged, the guy hit with BS racism claims dropped by almost the same amount.
Now you're just getting stupid.
I'm not a Republican, never have been. I almost wish I were so I could vote for Cain in the primary.
Everything you write pretty much backs up why land use is a very poor indicator for energy. Environmental pollution produced, number of people killed, these are good criteria because we care about these things. As you note, there is a LOT of land available, and even our largest projects suggest taking up a tiny percentage of it.
Not making sense. If you drain it, you no longer get the power. We were talking about land use necessary for actual generation of electricity. Plus it will take many years for the former ecosystem to return.
Even your oil comment wasn't about land USED, but about sea polluted by one accident. And don't forget, in a lot of ways, the cleanup effort for Valdez made things worse. Nature has very good cleaning mechanisms.
Because both require strong executive skills. Chief Executive Officer, Chief of the Executive Branch. The word "executive" is in there for a reason.
So let me get your logic straight. The Tea Partiers and Republicans are racist, so Cain by making an anti-racist comment has ruined his chance of the GOP nomination, has been falling out of favor.
Interesting. It seems you think race drives the Republican choice, and they will grant or withdraw support based on views towards racism.
You may like to know Cain is now the frontrunner among Republicans along with Romney with 17 points each. Not only that, but Romney has increased only one point, but Cain has pulled up a dramatic 12 points since this incident and is showing no sign of slowing down.
So by your race-baiting logic, Cain's denouncement of racism has vastly increased his stature among Republicans.
Since you skipped it the first time, military force was authorized, period, regardless of country. Military action in Yemen, or wherever else, is absolutely legal.
Irrelevant. The authorization for use of force is against the organization, which means anyone who is in that organization.
By your absurd logic, Japanese soldiers who weren't involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, which would be most of them, were not legitimate enemy targets in WWII.
Ludicrous. There is a review process for putting anyone on the hit list. I do not even come close to the requirements (like, I don't know, actively recruiting for Al Qaeda and directing its operations).
I love this total BS, trying to convince people he wasn't Al Qaeda. You just don't like us taking out their operatives for whatever reason, quite possibly sympathy for their cause, and reach for whatever absurdities you can find to try to condemn the legal killing of the enemy in military actions.
Ridiculous. But let's go with it as a measure of efficiency.
First, love the usual vast over-inflation of numbers. 2,800 + 1,000 does not equal 3,800,000.
And you speak of Chernobyl as lost, when in fact it has become Europe's largest wildlife refuge. Environmentalists should love that.
Nature is taking care of that quite well. And looking at the larger picture, the amount of oil spilled was equivalent to putting a couple drops of oil into an olympic-sized swimming pool.
You're probably right there. And don't forget the coal fires. However, the number, as usual, looks vastly inflated.
Hydroelectric: Massive amounts of land flooded to function, although it does acquire an alternate ecology as Chernobyl did. The top ten dam reservoirs take up over 56,000 square kilometers of area. But this does not count damage to down-river ecosystems, especially deltas. That is compounded since erosion of deltas makes sea erosion worse, and hurricanes more damaging.
Wind and solar: Massive amounts of land required just to function. Wind gives about 3 MW peak per square kilometer. But given how often the wind actually blows strong enough to achieve peak power, 1.5 is a more realistic (although still generous) number.
We have 101,263 MW of nuclear generating capacity and 315,000 MW for coal. You would need 277,508 square kilometers of land to make that up in wind (with my generous number). That's an area a bit bigger than Oregon.
So, what wastes more land?
The Democrats, even liberal Democrats, are owned by the entertainment industry.
Don't pull a "No True Scotsman" on the definition of "liberal."
That, and all the Godzilla movies.
Seriously, you can see smoke, fire, water, air pollution (even from a plants a hundred miles away), a blade flying off, etc. But you can't see radiation, and that scares people.
I was trained to map fallout patterns, radiation levels, optimum time of exit, etc., so it doesn't really scare me. I know what's involved.